SATYANARAYAN RAO, J.

These two applications are by two partners of a firm known as P. Nagojee Rao & Son. The petitioners pray that this Court should issue a writ of certiorari calling for the papers and quashing the order of attachment made by the first respondent, the Collector or Madras, at the instance of the second respondent, and to prohibit him from recovering the demand amount of Rs. 88, 799-6-0, which was the tax levied on the firm under the Excess Profits Tax Act for the chargeable accounting periods commencing from 1st April, 1944, and ending with 31st March, 1946. W. P. No. 594 of 1953 was filed by Pandu Rao and W. P. No. 668 of 1953 by Thyagaraja Rao. The other partner of the firm besides these two partners was Gannu Rao. The share of Gannu Rao was 3/5th and Thyagaraja Rao and Pandu Rao were each entitled to 1/5th share. The partnership, which was commenced on 1st April, 1941, carried on its business without any dispute between the partners, as alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the applications, till about September, 1946. On 26th February, 1947, a suit for dissolution of the Partnership, C. S. No. 89 of 1947, was instituted on the original side of this Court in which a preliminary decree was passed on 14th November, 1947, dissolving the firm as from 26th February, 1947. A final decree followed and it was dated 26th November, 1952. Throughout, Gannu Rao was appointed Receiver and he was functioning as such.

The firm was registered under Section 26A of the Income-tax Act and the income-tax in respect of the business carried on by the firm was duly assessed and paid by the partners. There is no dispute as regards the income-tax payable; and throughout the returns were submitted by, and the person who took part in the proceedings the returns were submitted by, and the person who took part in the proceedings before the Income-tax Officer was Gannu Rao. So far as excess profits tax is concerned, there is no dispute that for the chargeable accounting years commencing from 1941 to 1944, it was duly levied on the firm and was paid by it. Here again, the return was submitted by Gannu Rao as managing partner. The dispute now relates to the excess profits tax alone payable in respect of the chargeable accounting period, i.e., from 1st April, 1944, to 31st March, 1946. Proceedings under Section 13 of the Excess Profits Tax Act were commenced against the firm, and notice, it is not disputed, was served on Gannu Rao as managing partner of the firm. The assessment was finished on 31st December, 1949, and the demand notice was also served on Gannu Rao both in his capacity as managing partner and also as Receiver appointed in C. S. No. 89 of 1947. No demand notice was separately served on the other partners, viz., the petitioners before us, and the only notice they had was the notice of demand issued by the Revenue Department for collection of the tax and the subsequent attachment of the property of the two partners by the Revenue Department. It is after this that these petitions were field by the two petitioners, impugning the validity of the assessment on the ground, that they never had any notice either under Section 13 of the Excess Profits Tax Act or after the assessment was finalised as required by Section 29 of the Income-tax Act, which applies also to the Excess Profits Tax Act. On this ground, it is claimed that the assessment order should be quashed, and in any event as no demand notice under Section 29 was served upon these partners individually, the attachment proceedings should not be allowed to continue.The short question is, whether, in view of the facts above stated, the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners are well-founded. The basis of the whole argument on behalf of the petitioners by their learned advocate is, that after the dissolution was effected by virtue of the preliminary decree dated 14th November, 1947, with effect from 26th February, 1947, the date on which the suit for di