New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (7) TMI 443 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2016 (7) TMI 443 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - TMI - Recovery of amount from the son (agent of the mother and POA holder) for tax dues pending against the the mother of the petitioner - principal agent relationship between the mother and son - The petitioner is holding the general Power of Attorney of his mother and he used to represent M/s.JSS Enterprises in capacity as the power of attorney. - Held that:- We cannot accept the contention for the simple reason that when two separate identity in law a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

AL NO. 2707/2015(T-RES) - Dated:- 21-6-2016 - MR. JAYANT PATEL AND MR.B.SREENIVASE GOWDA JJ. APPELLANT: (BY SRI. P.M. NAYAK, ADVOCATE) RESPONDENTS: (BY SMT. SWETHA KRISHNAPPA, HCGP FOR R1 & R2; R3 SERVED) JUDGMENT The present appeal is directed against the order dated 04.08.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.27292/2015, whereby the learned Single Judge for the reasons recorded in the order has dismissed the petition. 2. W .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the petitioner who is Proprietor of the firm known as M/s.JSS Enterprises, Subrahmanya Nagar, Bangalore. 2. The petitioner is holding the general Power of Attorney of his mother and he used to represent M/s.JSS Enterprises in capacity as the power of attorney. 3. M/s.JSS Enterprises was required to pay the tax dues but it did not and therefore there is liability to pay the amount of ₹ 24,78,320/- more particularly, which has not been paid. The said aspects of liabi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

No.3 pursuant to the said order of respondent No.1 has transferred the amount of ₹ 2,23,288/- to respondent No.1. 6. The petitioner in his individual capacity is also running the business on the name of M/s.Preethi Wines and the account with respondent No.3 Bank was of the petitioner as Proprietor of M/s.Preethi Wines and not as the power of attorney holder or as representative of M/s.JSS Enterprises. 4. Under the circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

h the notice and ultimately dismissed the petition. Under the circumstances, the present appeal before this Court. 5. In our view, it was an admitted position that the petitioner represented M/s.JSS Enterprises in capacity as the power of attorney holder, as per the Contract Act and the capacity of the petitioner was as that of the agent and the principal was his mother who was the Proprietor of M/s.JSS Enterprises. In law, for the act of the agent, principal may be held responsible .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n or that was a projected dummy and all money and other activities pertaining to the business were by the petitioner himself for his benefit and not for the benefit of the mother. It is not the case of respondent No s.1 and 2 that any such enquiry was held. In absence of any enquiry, the liability as per the Contract Act, needs to be followed including that of the contract of the agency. 6. However, the learned Government Pleader attempted to contend that the conduct of the appellant .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version