https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167755 A surety who served notice in accordance with the bond terms and proved service through unrebutted evidence was held to have validly withdrawn after the notice period, so liability could not extend to sales tax dues arising later. The court also held that a civil suit was not barred by section 62 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 where the plaintiff was neither dealer nor assessee and the impugned action was beyond statutory authority. On that basis, civil court jurisdiction remained available and the decrees in favour of the plaintiff were sustained. en-us Mon, 08 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Jan 2015 10:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167755 A surety who served notice in accordance with the bond terms and proved service through unrebutted evidence was held to have validly withdrawn after the notice period, so liability could not extend to sales tax dues arising later. The court also held that a civil suit was not barred by section 62 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 where the plaintiff was neither dealer nor assessee and the impugned action was beyond statutory authority. On that basis, civil court jurisdiction remained available and the decrees in favour of the plaintiff were sustained. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 08 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167755