9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (1) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment orders against the firm Ram Sewak Pramod Kumar. The assessment orders stated that this firm commenced business on 12th November, 1965, in grains, etc. In paragraph 2 of both these assessment orders it has been stated that in response to the notice under rule 41(5), Sri Ram Sewak, proprietor of the firm, appeared. The firm was assessed to a tax of Rs. 1,500 for the year 1965-66 and to a tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdingly came to this court under article 226 of the Constitution. His case is that he was not a partner in the firm M/s. Ram Sewak Pramod Kumar. In the counter-affidavit it has been stressed that in the application for registration it was stated that Ram Sewak and the petitioner Uma Shanker were partners of the firm. But it has not been mentioned or stated that the petitioner ever signed that app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner was a partner in this firm. In Sant Bux Singh, Jaunpur v. State of U.P. and Others[1974] 34 S.T.C. 289; 1973 U.P.T.C. 539. , a Bench of this Court observed: "We may point out that an assessment order should contain not only the assessment of turnover and tax but should also indicate the person liable to pay the same. The department will be well-advised to amend the form of return so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctum of this decision is applicable to the present case. In our opinion, the Sales Tax Officer should have held an enquiry into the question as to who were the partners of the assessee-firm and thereafter should have amended the recovery certificate appropriately. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed in part. The respondents are directed to stay proceedings for recovery as against t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
