Back
2003 Supreme(All) 194
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M. Katju and Prakash Krishna, JJ.
RAVI KUMAR VASHISTHA - Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 155 Of 2003
Decided On : 01/29/2003
J.P.PANDEY
Important Points
Subject
Taxation Law - Entertainment Tax
Act Referred
Headnote
Entertainment Tax - Recovery of Entertainment Tax - Liability of Partners - Indian Partnership Act, 1932
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the recovery of entertainment tax, arguing that as one of the 4 partners of the firm, only 48.7% of the tax should be recovered from him.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition, citing Section 25 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, which holds every partner liable jointly and severally for all acts of the firm.
Issues: Recovery of entertainment tax from a partner of a firm and the liability under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 25 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, which establishes the joint and several liability of partners for the acts of the firm.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, affirming the joint and several liability of partners for the acts of the firm under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.
( 1 ) THE petitioner is challenging the recovery of entertainment tax. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is only one of the 4 partners of the firm M/s. National Cable network against which recovery has been issued whereas his share is only 48. 7%. He prays that only 48. 7% of the entertainment tax due should be recovered from the petitioner.
( 2 ) UNDER Section 25 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 every partner is liable jointly as well as severally for all the acts of the firm done while he is a partner. Hence, there is no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
( 3 ) THE petition is dismissed.
.
