SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Ker) 555

K.T.SANKARAN, K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
Vinod Babu – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector – Respondent


Judgment :-

Radhakrishnan, J.

Whether an incoming partner could be made liable personally for the arrears of sales tax accrued prior to his induction as a partner of the firm is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.

2. Petitioner is a partner of M/s. Capital Builders, a registered partnership firm. Partnership firm was registered on 3-11-1993 by two partners by name Anitha Paul and Latha. Latha ceased to be a partner on 1-11-1996 and the petitioner was inducted as the partner on the said date in the partnership firm.

3. The Tahsildar (RR), second respondent herein, issued a demand notice dated 2-5-2005 under section 34 of the Revenue Recovery Act calling upon the petitioner to pay sales tax arrears of M/s. Capital builders for an amount for Rs.13,25,062/- for the assessment year 1995-96. Petitioner came to know about the demand notice only on 27-5-2005 when the notice was affixed on the petitioner’s building at Karimpatta Road leased out to one Ganesh, Managing Director of Synergy Homes (P) Ltd. Second respondent issued notice of attachment dated 2-5-2005 to the said Ganesh requesting him to hold and pay the monthly rent of the said building to the second resp










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top