https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392875 A partnership firm claimed that service tax earlier paid in the name of the erstwhile sole proprietorship should be treated as payment made by the successor firm, since the business had been taken over with assets and liabilities. The court did not decide the substantive tax issue; instead, it noted that the firm's representation dated 22 July 2019 was still pending before the Commissioner. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to decide the representation by a speaking order within four weeks from receipt of the representation. en-us Mon, 17 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Mar 2020 11:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392875 A partnership firm claimed that service tax earlier paid in the name of the erstwhile sole proprietorship should be treated as payment made by the successor firm, since the business had been taken over with assets and liabilities. The court did not decide the substantive tax issue; instead, it noted that the firm's representation dated 22 July 2019 was still pending before the Commissioner. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to decide the representation by a speaking order within four weeks from receipt of the representation. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 17 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392875