DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES Vs. K. BHAKTHAVATSALAM
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES
Referred Judgements :-
CANNON DUNKERLEY AND CO. V. STATE OF MADRAS
Click here to view full judgement.
SATYANARAYANA RAJU,J. -
(1.)This is, a revision petition filed by the State of Andhra against the decision of the Sales Tax Appellate
Tribunal in T. A. No. 56-A of 1953.
(2.)The respondent is the son of one K. Janakiram Naidu, who was a railway contractor doing business under the name and style of K. Janakiram Naidu and Sons at Kodur. The father having died, the five sons of the said Janakiram Naidu, of whom, the 3rd is the respondent herein, executed a deed of partnership on 7-7-1943, in and by which they had mutually agreed to become partners subject to terms contained in the deed.
The deed provides 'inter alia' that the partnership shall be in force for a period of five years from 20-5-43 and on the expiry of the period, for such further time as the partners may mutually agree. The partnership was dissolved on 17-12-1951 by a memorandum of agreement entered into at Madras between the respondent and his brothers.
It recites that the brothers have been carrying on partnership because under the name and style of Messrs. Janakiram and Sons, that disputes have arisen between them regarding the sharing of the assets and liabilities of the above said partnership and that, they agree that as from that date they should become divided in status from each, other and that the partnership shall also stand dissolved as from that date.
It was further agreed that certain sums payable to the aforesaid partnership by the Southern Railway, Madras, in respect of two bills drawn in respect of contract works carried out by Kothandaram Naidu and Bhaktavatsalam Naidu (respondent) on behalf of the partnership should be drawn by another brother Muthyala Narayana Rao Naidu.
(3.)In the year of assessment 1949-50, there was a contract with the Railway in the name of the partnership for the construction of running rooms at Kondapuram. The D. C. T. O., assessed the respondent on a sum1 of Rs. 54,745/- allowing a deduction of 30 per cent, on his contract work as prescribed. The respondent preferred an appeal to the C. T. O., contending 'inter alia' that the firm of Janakiram Naidu and Sons alone should have been assessed as the business was that of the partnership and his individual business.
The C. T. O, however, dismissed his appeal. On a further appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, it was held by the majority of the members that the business was conducted as a partnership business and that therefore the assessment ought to have been properly made only against Messrs. Janakiram Naidu and Sons.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.