TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the deceased partner - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - WP(C).No. 9021 of 2015 (C) - - - Dated:- 29-6-2016 - A.M.Shaffique, J. Harisankar V. Menon and Smt. Meera V. Menon for the petitioner Smt. Lilly K. T., Government Pleader, for the respondents JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P5 order passed by the 1st respondent by which it is confirmed that revenue recovery proceedings can be initiated against the petitioner. 2. The short facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the petitioner, while he was a minor was inducted as a partner of the firm M/s.Malabar Cashew and Allied Products with effect from 01/01/1975. The partnership was reconstituted on 01/01/1976 by which the petitioner and three other minors were excluded from the partnership. The firm was liable to pay sales tax dues and accordingly, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent proceeded on the basis that the petitioner, being a partner, was also liable for the arrears of sales tax dues and accordingly, steps were taken against the petitioner under Section 65 of the Revenue Recovery Act. Petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d been taken against the petitioner and therefore the petitioner submitted a petition dated 29/07/2007 to the District Collector for withdrawing the revenue recovery proceedings against him. It is, in the said circumstances, that the District Collector had referred the matter to the sales tax authorities. 5. The learned Single Judge, however, in WP(C) No. 23496/2006 and connected cases, observed at para 16 as under: 16. Pursuant to the revision filed by the petitioner in W.P.C.No.19555/2009, the matter was remanded by the Government as per Ext.P3, directing the District Collector to take necessary steps to enquire and arrive at the actual facts and figures of partnership and to proceed against all the persons who were partners of the firm for the period for which the arrears fell due to the Government. The specific submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this case is that, since Ext.P3 has become final, it is no more open to the District Collector to have directed the second respondent to conduct any enquiry as to the status of the petitioner. But it has to be borne in mind, that the proceedings were finalized by the Government as per Ext.P3, in relatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as against any person by whom or on whose behalf such statement, intimation or notice was signed, be conclusive proof of any fact therein stated. (2) A certified copy of an entry relating to a firm in the Register of Firms may be produced in proof of the fact of the registration of such firm, and of the contents of any statement, intimation or notice recorded or noted therein. Ext.P1(b) is the evidence and is a conclusive proof of the fact of joining and retirement of the petitioner from the firm. Ext.P1 is the deed of partnership dated 01/1/1975 wherein the petitioner, who was 11 years was admitted to the benefits of the partnership firm and from the partnership deed dated 01/01/1976, it is evident that the minors including the petitioner had retired from the firm. It was confirmed as per the entry in the Register of Firms (Form A). 8. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1 st respondent supporting the stand taken by the authorities. It is stated that the firm is liable to pay an amount of 17,42,86,459/- from M/s. Malabar Cashew and Allied Products. Sec.21 of the KGST Act reads as under: 21. Liability of firms: (1) Where any firm is liable t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r is not personally liable for any such act. 10. The above statutory provision clearly indicates that the minor is not a partner of the firm. Section 25 indicates liability of the firm for acts of firm. This provision will not apply since the minor does not become a partner of the firm. The only question is whether the petitioner, who was a minor, had issued notice in terms of 30(5) of the Act. Here the materials produced on record clearly shows that he had ceased to be a person admitted to benefits of partnership with effect from 01/01/1976. In such an event, the question of Sections 30(5) or 30(7) does not arise at all. Section 30(7) applies only when an option is exercised on becoming a partner, in terms of Section 30(5). Sections 30(5) and (7) reads as under: 30(5): At any time within six months of his attaining majority, or of his obtaining knowledge that he had been admitted to the benefits of partnership, whichever date is later, such person may give public notice that he has elected to become or that he has elected not to become a partner in the firm, and such notice shall determine his position as regards the firm; Provided that, if he fails to give such not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
