<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2016 (11) TMI 1080 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335062</link>
    <description>A statutory sales tax charge could not be enforced against purchasers who acquired secured property under SARFAESI for value without actual or constructive notice of the higher dues, unless the statute expressly created such priority. The purchasers were not successors in business of the defaulting company, so joint and several liability under the sales tax law did not arise. The Court also noted that constructive notice cannot be presumed merely from the existence of the charge, and that the later amendment giving priority to secured creditors supported this limited protection. Enforcement was therefore confined only to the amount already reflected in the revenue record.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Nov 2016 11:33:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=449151" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 1080 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335062</link>
      <description>A statutory sales tax charge could not be enforced against purchasers who acquired secured property under SARFAESI for value without actual or constructive notice of the higher dues, unless the statute expressly created such priority. The purchasers were not successors in business of the defaulting company, so joint and several liability under the sales tax law did not arise. The Court also noted that constructive notice cannot be presumed merely from the existence of the charge, and that the later amendment giving priority to secured creditors supported this limited protection. Enforcement was therefore confined only to the amount already reflected in the revenue record.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335062</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>