SATISH CHANDKA, C.J. - (1.) THESE three writ petitions are inter -related. They have been filed by a firm, M/s. Brij Ratan Lal Bhoop Kishore, as one of its partners. The prayer is that the recovery certificate and the attachment order of the properties of the partner be quashed.
(2.) THE firm, M/s. Brij Ratan Lal Bhoop Kishore, consisted of four partners. It was treated as a registered firm for the assessment year 1964 -65 and subsequent years till 1967 -68. The firm was dissolved on February 1, 1968. With effect from February 2, 1968, two of the partners, namely. Brij Ratan Lal and Bhoop Kishore, started a new partnership firm. For the assessment year 1968 -69, the firm was assessed as a registered firm on a total income of Rs. 2,86,545. An appeal and then a second appeal yielded some relief. Meanwhile the Addl. CIT issued a notice under Section 263(1) of the Act dated July 3, 1970, addressed to the firm requiring it to show cause why the order directing registration be not cancelled. After hearing the petitioner, the Addl. CIT by an order dated Septembers, 1970, cancelled the registration of the firm for the assessment year 1968 -69, and directed the ITO to reassess the tax payable by the firm treating it to be an unregistered firm. The firm filed an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal which was dismissed on April 6, 1972. It appears that in September, 1973, the TRO attached some house properties belonging to the partners. This was in pursuance of the recovery certificate dated March 16, 1972, forwarded by the ITO for realisation of Rs. 1,67,140 due from the firm.
(3.) AT this stage, the present writ petitions were filed to challenge the validity of the recovery certificate as well as the order of attachment.;