<?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>2021 (3) TMI 1023 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405695</link>
    <description>Recovery of tax arrears may be pursued against a later business carried on by the dealer&#039;s wife where the material shows that the new concern is, in substance, a continuation of the defaulting dealer&#039;s business at the same premises and under a different name. The note also records that recovery was confined to the extent covered by the undertaking accepted by the Court and to assets lawfully traceable to the transfer or settlement. Earlier self-acquired immovable properties of the wife were protected, and a garnishee order against the dealer&#039;s business associate was not permitted. Attachment could continue only within the limits of the accepted liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Mar 2022 13:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=639848" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (3) TMI 1023 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405695</link>
      <description>Recovery of tax arrears may be pursued against a later business carried on by the dealer&#039;s wife where the material shows that the new concern is, in substance, a continuation of the defaulting dealer&#039;s business at the same premises and under a different name. The note also records that recovery was confined to the extent covered by the undertaking accepted by the Court and to assets lawfully traceable to the transfer or settlement. Earlier self-acquired immovable properties of the wife were protected, and a garnishee order against the dealer&#039;s business associate was not permitted. Attachment could continue only within the limits of the accepted liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405695</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>