<?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>2022 (3) TMI 1314 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420276</link>
    <description>Notice under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax recovery mechanism was sufficient to fasten personal liability on a creditor who continued paying a defaulting dealer after being informed of tax arrears. Section 26 permits recovery from persons holding money on behalf of the dealer, and payment to the assessing authority after notice discharges liability only to the extent stated in the notice; any later payment to the dealer can attract personal liability under Section 26(4). A fresh Form B-6 notice was held unnecessary once arrears had already been intimated, and the creditor ought to have sought clarification before making further payments. The writ petition therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2022 08:21:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=674475" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (3) TMI 1314 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420276</link>
      <description>Notice under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax recovery mechanism was sufficient to fasten personal liability on a creditor who continued paying a defaulting dealer after being informed of tax arrears. Section 26 permits recovery from persons holding money on behalf of the dealer, and payment to the assessing authority after notice discharges liability only to the extent stated in the notice; any later payment to the dealer can attract personal liability under Section 26(4). A fresh Form B-6 notice was held unnecessary once arrears had already been intimated, and the creditor ought to have sought clarification before making further payments. The writ petition therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420276</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>