<?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>1978 (9) TMI 31 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37346</link>
    <description>Section 159 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 limits a legal representative&#039;s liability to the deceased assessee&#039;s tax dues, with personal liability arising only in the statutory circumstances specified in sub-section (4); a civil suit for a declaration of no personal liability was therefore not maintainable. Questions concerning execution, discharge, or satisfaction of a duly filed certificate had to be decided by the statutory recovery authority under Rule 9 of Schedule II and section 37 of the Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913, and no fraud was pleaded, so the suit was barred. Rule 11 of Schedule II also required the Tax Recovery Officer to determine objections to attachment before a civil suit could lie, making the action premature.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Sep 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Mar 2010 12:00:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=75892" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (9) TMI 31 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37346</link>
      <description>Section 159 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 limits a legal representative&#039;s liability to the deceased assessee&#039;s tax dues, with personal liability arising only in the statutory circumstances specified in sub-section (4); a civil suit for a declaration of no personal liability was therefore not maintainable. Questions concerning execution, discharge, or satisfaction of a duly filed certificate had to be decided by the statutory recovery authority under Rule 9 of Schedule II and section 37 of the Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913, and no fraud was pleaded, so the suit was barred. Rule 11 of Schedule II also required the Tax Recovery Officer to determine objections to attachment before a civil suit could lie, making the action premature.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Sep 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37346</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>