ORDER :- This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that a concern known as the Saghir Tannery of Kanpur owned machinery and some other property. The Saghir Tannery found itself in difficulties as it had to pay a sum of about Rs. 92,000/- to a bank and certain sums to a number of other of editors. The Saghir Tannery was a private limited company and the company consisted of two individuals, Mohammad Ibrahim and Jan Mohammad, who were also its Managing Directors (as appears from the copy of the sale deed filed by the petitioner in this case).

These two persons executed a registered sale deed in favour of Abdul Qaiyum and Altaf Ahmad on 30-5-1950 for a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/-. The amount, it appears, was duly paid by the purchasers, who got possession of the property sold. These two purchasers then entered into a partnership with Elahi Bux and admitted also a minor Khurshid Ahmad to the benefits of the partnership. This partnership thus consisted of four persons and it commenced its business on 8-1-1951.

A duly signed partnership deed was executed on 10-1-51. The partnership took on lease from Abdul Qaiyum and Altaf Ahmad the machinery and other properties which they had purchased from the Saghir Tannery by means of the sale deed dated 30-5-1950. The new concern was known as the New India Tannery, Kanpur, and it has continued to work since the date the partnership came into existence.

3. It appears that a large amount of income-tax was due from the Saghir Tannery which comes to about Rs. 42,000/- and the Tahsildar, Income-tax, Kanpur, respondent 1 to the petition, has been trying to recover this amount from the property which previously belonged to the Saghir Tannery and was sold by it to Abdul Qaiyum and Altaf Ahmad. On 25-3-1955, he actually succeeded in realising a sum of Rs. 3427/14/9 from the petitioners firm, as the sum due from the Saghir Tannery on account of arrears of sales tax.

As regards the income-tax of more than Rs. 42,000/- he issued a questionnaire to the petitioner firm on 23-9-1953. The petitioner replied to the questionnaire protesting against any liability of theirs to answer the questions or for the payment of the income-tax. On 23-9-1953, the Tahsildar again issued a letter to the petitioner stating that the petitioner had purchased the Saghir Tannery and, under the Land Revenue Act, the liabilities of the firm also devolve on the petitioner.

The petitioner sent a reply controverting the above proposition. The matter appears to have rested there for the time being till a fresh notice was issued to the petitioner on 1-2-1955 and it was said in this notice that the Saghir Tannery was sold to the petitioner with all its liabilities, and Abdul Qaiyum and Altaf Ahmad. two of the partners of the firm, were requested to attend the office of the Tahsildar.

On 25-7-1955, the Kurk Amin of the Tahsildar came to demand the money and threatened attachment of the premises and the stocks of the petitioner if the money was not paid within a few days. The present petition was then filed on 27-7-1955 praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus restraining the respondent 1 from taking any action against the petitioners property for the recovery of the amount of income-tax due from the Saghir Tannery.

4. The facts that I have stated above are contained in the affidavit, filed along with the petition, and in the annexures attached to the affidavit. They are not denied in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State. On the other hand it is stated in para. 3 of the counter-affidavit that there was a private limited company known as the Saghir Tannery Ltd. and the properties of this company were sold by its proprietors to Abdul Qaiyum and Altai Ahmad.

The execution of the sale deed is admitted and it is not stated anywhere that the sale deed was not a legal and valid document. The plea taken in the counter-affidavit is that the petitioner company had undertaken the liability to pay th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document