GOPALKISHAN Vs. SALES TAX OFFICER
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
GOPALKISHAN, BHIMSEN SACHDEVA
SALES TAX OFFICER
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners seek a writ of certiorari for quashing an assessment order dated 4th October, 1966, passed by the respondent No. 1. The petitioners also seek a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from giving effect to the said order. By the said order, Messrs Bhimsen Sachdeva, Marhatal, Jabalpur, an unregistered dealer, has been assessed to sales tax for the period from 1st April, 19,59 to 31st March, 1965. The tax liability has been determined at Rs. 20,600 and a penalty in the like amount has been imposed.
(2.) THE petitioners entered into partnership with their father, Bhimsen Sachdeva, in the year 1964 and carried on the business of iron and steel in the name and style of "messrs Sachdeva and Company. " Bhimsen Sachdeva died on 4th April, 1965. The petitioners' case is that sometime before the death of Bhimsen Sachdeva, he had retired from the partnership and the partnership business thereafter was carried on by the petitioners alone. They hold a registration certificate as a "dealer" under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, and they have been assessed for the business carried on by them.
(3.) IT appears that a notice was issued by the first respondent in Form XVI prescribed under the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in the name of Bhimsen Sachdeva, an unregistered dealer, calling upon him to show cause why he should not be assessed to the best of judgment for the period from 1st April, 1959 to 31st March, 1965, he having failed to apply for registration, and why a penalty under Section 18 (6) should not be imposed on him. Bhimsen Sachdeva had died before the notice was issued, and hence it appears that the service Was effected on the petitioners, who are his sons. On 30th September, 1965, the petitioners submitted an application protesting against the service of the notice on them. They also brought to the notice of the Sales Tax Authorities that Bhimsen Sachdeva had expired on 4th April, 1965, and that they could not be assessed for the dealings of Bhimsen Sachdeva, carried on by him in his individual capacity, inasmuch as the present firm of the petitioners had not acquired any of the assets or liabilities of Bhimsen Sachdeva. Even after this application, the first respondent insisted on proceeding with the assessment and served the petitioners with another notice informing them the date fixed for appearance and calling upon them to produce all the account books etc. This time the notice was issued in the name of "messrs Bhimsen Sachdeva, Proprietors, Sachdeva and Company, Marhatal, Jabalpur". The petitioners, it appears, therefore, appeared before the first respondent and thereafter the impugned order was passed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.