9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 467X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The facts, as pleaded in the petition, are that the firm was constituted in the year 1987 by virtue of a partnership deed executed on January 13, 1987. Respondent No. 4, who was the exclusive owner of land measuring 23 kanals 8 marlas, consisting of Khasra Nos. 59/9 and 83/22 killa Nos. 1, 2, 10.2 and 2 in Patti Bhagararu-Mullana, agreed to contribute the same as her share in the new partnership firm. One of the conditions of the latest partnership deed dated April 1, 1995 entered into between the parties was that no partner shall hypothecate or alienate, in any manner, any property of the firm or raise any loan or create any liability in his/her individual capacity for personal purpose. The firm for the purpose of setting up of the rice sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as executed between the partners vide which respondent No. 4 became the sole proprietor of the firm and was to own all the assets and liabilities as on the date of dissolution. The said dissolution deed does not form part of the documents annexed with the petition, as the same is stated to be not readily available with the petitioners. According to the petitioners, after the dissolution, the firm continued to function for a period of two years under the sole proprietorship of respondent No. 4 through her son, Yogesh Goel, and the surplus generated from the business of the firm during this period went to the account of respondent No. 4 only. Petitioner No. 1 was served with a notice dated September 21, 1999 for recovery of Rs. 3,16,383 outst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contention is that after keeping quite for about 6-7 years from the issue of first notice in September, 1999, the official respondents issued notice dated June 12, 2006 to petitioner No. 1 seeking to recover the amount of sales tax due against the firm for the years 1995-96 and 1996-97, which was followed by summons dated August 25, 2006 for recovery thereof as arrears of land revenue. The summons were issued only in the name of petitioner No. 1 and not in the names of other partners who were allegedly there when the original partnership firm was constituted. In reply to the writ petition, the official respondents submitted that the demand was created on account of purchase tax leviable on paddy, the rice procured out of which was sold to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me was sold by respondent No. 4 in the year 1999. Sale of building constructed and plant and machinery erected by the firm by raising loan from the Haryana Financial Corporation has not been denied. Another portion of the land was gifted by respondent No. 4 to her grand son. It is further pleaded that respondent No. 4 was served with notice dated March 20, 2006 and in response thereto, she deposited a sum of Rs. 2,53,055 with the Assessing Authority on July 3, 2006. It is petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, who are responsible for payment of the dues, as they had been given the power of attorney to work on behalf of the firm by all other partners. Replications to the written statements have been filed and even rejoinder to the replication has also be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugh her son Sh. Yogesh Goel. Even there was a commission agent shop in the name of M/s. Saraswati Traders which was also run by Sh. Yogesh Goel as proprietor. Thus all assets and liabilities were taken by Smt. Bhagwan Devi Goel and even the benefit for a period of two years were availed by Smt. Bhagwan Devi Goel and her son. Not only this even a dryer plant was also installed by Smt. Bhagwan Devi Goel in the same premises in the year 1987-88 which was operational for a period of two years and now the operation is being carried out by change of name by depicting the sale, purchase and gift deed, etc., in the name of M/s. Gaurav Rice Mills. Pleadings of respondent No. 4: 5.. That the averments made and contention raised in para No. 5 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ners nor the same was submitted with the sales tax authorities as required under section 58 of the Act and further respondent No. 4 having disputed the factum of dissolution, the same being disputed questions of fact, but still we find force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that even if there were any dues against the firm, the same were required to be satisfied from the assets of the firm. Sufficient assets of the firm being available, the recovery of the amount due could very well be made from that. Respondent No. 4 did not have any authority to transfer the assets of the firm in case those had not come to her by way of dissolution holding her responsible for all assets and liabilities as on the date of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
