CHATTERJEE, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution by Ram Gopal Khemka and others against the Union of India represented by the CIT.
(2.) IT is stated in the petition that Industrial Financing Corporation was a partnership firm which carried on business during the years 1941-1953 at 37 Royd Street. It is further stated that during the asst. yr. 1949-50, 15 persons were the partners of the firm and their names are in paragraph 2 of the petition to this Court. The partnership is stated to have been constituted under a deed of partnership dt. the 25th Jan., 1947. The firm was an unregistered firm in the sense that it was not registered in accordance with the provisions of the IT Act. The assessment of the firm for the asst. yr. 1949-50 was made on the 22nd Aug., 1953, and, on the basis of that assessment, a demand notice under s. 29 was issued against the said firm. But it is stated that no demand notice was ever served upon any of the petitioners or their predecessors-in-interest. The ITO, thereafter, issued a requisition under s. 46(2) of the Indian IT Act to the Collector of 24---Parganas against the said firm. On the basis of the said requisition, a certificate, No. 556 I.T. (C)/54-55, under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, was filed in the office of the certificate officer on the 31 st March, 1955. It is further stated in the petition that no notice under s. 7 of the said Act was served upon the firm. The notice under s. 7, however, was served on the 11th, Feb., 1957, on the petitioner No. 1 and one Kishore Lal Khemka, since deceased, whose heirs and legal representatives are the petitioners No. 2 to 5. On the 13th March, 1957, the petitioner No. 1 and late Kishore Lal Khemka filed a petition of objection. It was stated in that petition of objection that the firm having been discontinued long ago, the present assessment on the discontinued firm itself is illegal and invalid. Mr. Jyotish Chandra Pal, who appeared on behalf of the petitioners, referred us to a letter of the ITO, District 24-Parganas, dt. the 25th June, 1957, which is as follows : ".... The firm was not discontinued before the completion of the assessment and, therefore, the assessment is quite legal."
(3.) THIS statement has not been challenged by Mr. Pal with his usual fairness. We, therefore, proceed on the basis that the firm neither discontinued its business nor the firm was dissolved at any time before the assessment was completed. The completion of the assessment would be by a notice under s. 29. Therefore, we proceed on the basis that the firm was still functioning at the date when the notice under s. 29 was served.;