High Court Of Calcutta
Renupada Mukherjee, J.
Union Of India - Appellants
Vs
Satyanarayan Khan And Others. - Respondents
Appeal from Original Decree114 of 1955
Decided on: March 22, 1960
INCOME TAX - RECOVERY OF TAXES FROM PARTNERS OF DISSOLVED FIRM - LIABILITY OF PARTNERS - AMENDMENT OF CERTIFICATES - PUBLIC DEMANDS RECOVERY ACT, 1918, SECTIONS 3(1), 4, 7 - INCOME TAX ACT, 1922, SECTIONS 29, 44, 46(2).
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a partner in a dissolved firm, challenged the validity of certificates filed against the firm for recovery of income tax dues. The certificates were prepared and filed by the Certificate Officer on the requisition of the Income-tax Officer.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the certificates were valid and binding on the firm, but they were not executable against the plaintiff respondent personally or individually. The court further held that the plaintiff respondent, as a partner of the dissolved firm, was liable for the taxes due from the firm, but only after suitable amendments of the certificates.
Issues: 1. Whether the personal goods of the plaintiff respondent were liable to be attached in execution of a certificate which was signed and prepared against an unregistered firm of which the respondent was one of the admitted partners during the relevant period? 2. Whether the certificates which had been signed and filed by the Certificate Officer on the requisition of the Income-tax Officer were good and valid certificates so far as the firm was concerned? 3. Whether these certificates were executable against the plaintiff respondent personally or individually?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the certificates were valid and binding on the firm, but they were not executable against the plaintiff respondent personally or individually. The court reasoned that the liability of the dissolved firm to pay the certificate debts was also the liability of the plaintiff respondent, but the debts in question could be recovered from him only after his name had been mentioned in the certificates as a certificate debtor along with the firm. 2. The court held that the certificates were good and valid certificates so far as the firm was concerned. The court reasoned that even though the firm had been dissolved, a certificate could be legally filed against the firm in its own name as the assessment had been made against the firm when it was a going concern.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal in part and modified the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. The court held that the certificates were valid and binding on the firm, but they were not executable against the plaintiff respondent personally or individually. The court further held that the plaintiff respondent, as a partner of the dissolved firm, was liable for the taxes due from the firm, but only after suitable amendments of the certificates.
RENUPADA MUKHERJEE, J.
1. THE suit was contested by the union of India in the trial court. The defence which is material for the purpose of the present appeal was that the certificates mentioned in the plaint were valid and binding upon the plaintiff and so the attachment of plaintiffs moveables which followed the execution of the certificates is valid. Some other issues of a rather technical nature were also raised in the court below at the instance of the contesting defendant. But they were not pressed on behalf of the appellant in this appeal. Upon the evidence adduced on behalf of both parties the court below made a declaration that the certificates in question were invalid and inoperative and not binding on the plaintiff and the attachment of the properties of the plaintiff was also declared to be void. This appeal was preferred by the Union of India from the above judgment and decree passed by the trial court.
2. THE facts which have given rise to the present appeal are more or less admitted. There was firm of the name and style of Messers. "Satyanarayan Khan-Kalicharan Sadhukhan" which carried on business in various kinds of oil. This was a partnership firm of which the component members were plaintiff Satyanarayan Khan, Kalicharan Sadhukhan and Bepin Behari Tat. THE firm was as unregistered one. By the income-tax authorities this firm was assessed for the years 1943-44, 1944-45 and 1945-46. THE amount of taxes payable for the assessment of the above income-tax years were respectively (1) Rs. 1,091-2-0, (2) Rs. 59,972 and (3) Rs. 71,930-8-0. These amounts were not paid by the firm although notice of demand under section 29 of the Income-tax Act was served on the assessee firm. Thereupon, action was taken by the Income-tax Officer under section 46(2) of the Income-tax Act, who certified that the taxes mentioned above were not paid. On receipt of this certificate the Certificate Officer of Alipore filed three certificates under section 4 of the Public Demands Recovery Act. These cases were Certificate Cases Nos. 1115 I.T. of 1948-49, 1130 I.T. of 1948-49 and 366 I.T. of 1948-49. Notices were issued under section 7 of the Public Demands Recovery Act and served upon the firm. THE taxes were not paid. There upon some movable properties belonging to the plaintiff-partner were attached. THE plaintiff raised on objection before the certificate Officer which was dismissed and an appeal preferred by him was dismissed by the Collector of 24 Paraganas on 18th July, 1950. Thereupon, the present suit was instituted by the plaintiff on 16th December, 1950, for the reliefs which we have already mentioned.
The first and foremost question which calls for our determination in this appeal is whether the personal goods of the plaintiff respondent were liable to be attached in execution of a certificate which was signed and prepared against unregistered firm known as Satyanarayan Khan-Kalicharan Sadhukhan or which the respondent was one of the admitted partners during the relevant period. The firm has since been dissolved or discontinued. According to the statement made in the plaint the firm was dissolved since Baisakh, 1344 B.S., that is, corresponding to some time in April, 1947. It is not known at what exact time the fact of dissolution of the firm was brought to the notice of the income-tax authorities. But from a letter marked exhibit 2(c) in the trial court which bears the date of 3rd October, 1947, we may take it that the fact of dissolution or discontinuance of the partnership firm was brought to the knowledge of the Income-tax Officer who was dealing with these assessments on 3rd October, 1947, or shortly thereafter. It is at least clear the Income-tax Officer placed the matter before the certificate Officer under section 46(2) of the Income-tax Act, the fact of dissolution or discontinuance of the partnership was brought to his knowledge. The Certificate Officer prepared and filed the certificates in the name of the dissolve
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.