<?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>2018 (1) TMI 817 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354081</link>
    <description>A demand notice for recovery of sales tax arrears could not be enforced against an individual who had retired from the firm, because a civil court decree declaring that he was not a partner from 01.04.1990 had attained finality and bound the respondent. The Court also relied on the earlier principle that, where a minor partner is liable for arrears, recovery can be made only from the minor&#039;s assets and not from the natural guardian. In light of those prior determinations, the respondent could not proceed against the petitioner personally for the business arrears, and the impugned notice was quashed against him.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Jan 2018 08:22:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=504973" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 817 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354081</link>
      <description>A demand notice for recovery of sales tax arrears could not be enforced against an individual who had retired from the firm, because a civil court decree declaring that he was not a partner from 01.04.1990 had attained finality and bound the respondent. The Court also relied on the earlier principle that, where a minor partner is liable for arrears, recovery can be made only from the minor&#039;s assets and not from the natural guardian. In light of those prior determinations, the respondent could not proceed against the petitioner personally for the business arrears, and the impugned notice was quashed against him.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354081</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>