9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 1067X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent dated 21.8.2023 of the learned Single Judge in the writ petition. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this writ appeal are as follows: The appellant was formerly a partner of the 5th respondent firm who retired from the partnership with effect from 17.10.2000. The retirement deed is produced as Ext. P3 in the writ petition. In the writ petition it was the case of the appellant that, while he ceased to be a partner in the firm with effect from 17.10.2000, and the fact of his retirement from the partnership firm had been intimated to the respondent authorities under the Kerala General Sales Tax (KGST) Act, he was served with Exts. P5 and P6 assessment orders for the assessment year 2002-2003 under the KGST and Central Sales ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge therefore relegated the appellant to the statutory remedy of preferring an appeal against the assessment order and the recovery proceedings that were impugned in the writ petition. 5. Before us, it is the submission of Ms. P.K. Reshma, the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge erred in relegating the appellant to the alternative remedy in circumstances where the factual aspect of whether or not the appellant had retired from the partnership firm in 2000 was admitted by the respondents. She relies on Ext. P3 retirement deed, the receipt of which is not denied by the respondents, as also the fact that in the penalty proceedings initiated by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scribed by the statute and in no other manner. It is her contention that the said proposition applies with added vigour in tax matters where the interests of revenue have to be safeguarded. 7. On a consideration of the rival contentions, we find ourselves in agreement with the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, and for the reasons that follow, we are of the view that this writ appeal must succeed. It is not in dispute that the retirement deed that showed the appellant as having retired from the partnership firm in the year 2000 was received by the Department well before the assessment year 2002-2003. It is also not in dispute that in the penalty proceedings initiated for the said period, the appellant was not shown as pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
