9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 1109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent is a partnership firm in which the petitioner's wife is a partner. When the second respondent-firm was registered under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, ("the Act" for brevity), the petitioner, under rule 28 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957 ("the Rules" for brevity) offered his property at Korrapad as security for the tax liability of the second respondent-firm and filed a security bond. This security bond stood discharged at the end of the first assessment year as the liability thereunder was confined to the first year in which registration was granted to the second respondent-firm in terms of section 12 of the Act read with rule 28 of the Rules, i.e., for the assessment year 1995-96. The firs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act that his wife was a partner in the second respondent-firm, which was in arrears of sales tax due to the first respondent, did not entitle the first respondent to attach the self acquired property of the petitioner. The learned counsel would submit that the impugned notice dated September 25, 2009 does not even record a finding that the property in question is the property of the Hindu undivided family. It is evident from the impugned notice dated September 25, 2009 that the first respondent sought to attach the property in question not because he had given surety but because he was the husband of Smt. Devarasetty Sudhamani, allegedly a member of the petitioner's hindu undivided family. The first respondent relied on section 15B of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first respondent to attach the petitioner's immovable properties for arrears of sales tax due from the second respondent-firm in which the petitioner's wife is a partner. The impugned notice dated September 25, 2009 does not even record a finding that the property sought to be attached belongs to the Hindu undivided family of which the petitioner's wife is also a member. The petitioner's contention that the property is his self acquired property is not disputed by the first respondent. Even if it were to be held that the petitioner's wife is a member of a Hindu undivided family, the first respondent could only have attached the property of the Hindu undivided family and not the self-acquired property of the petitioner. & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
