1981 (11) TMI 161 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability of the petitioner as an heir for sales tax assessment of deceased partner.
2. Validity of demand notice issued by the Assessing Authority.
3. Existence of Hindu Undivided Family (H.U.F.) and its impact on assessment orders.
4. Relief due to the petitioner regarding demand notice and recovery process.

Analysis:

Liability of the petitioner as an heir: The petitioner's son, Ranjit Singh, was part of a partnership that obtained a sales tax registration certificate. Upon Ranjit Singh's death, the Assessing Authority held the partners and Ranjit Singh responsible for the tax liabilities. The petitioner, as Ranjit Singh's father, was deemed liable for the outstanding amounts. The Assessing Authority contended that liabilities were transferred to the petitioner as per the Hindu Succession Act. However, the court noted discrepancies in the assessment orders and the Assessing Authority's stance, leading to confusion regarding the petitioner's liability.

Validity of demand notice: The Assessing Authority issued a demand notice to the petitioner, addressing it to a non-existent entity, "M/s. Ranjit Singh Shankar Lal." The court emphasized that the notice should have been issued solely to the petitioner as an heir of the deceased partner. It highlighted the necessity of conducting an inquiry to determine if the petitioner had received any assets from the deceased partner before enforcing recovery. The court found the lack of opportunity for the petitioner to be heard in this regard, rendering the demand notice invalid.

Existence of H.U.F. and impact on assessment orders: The assessment order for the year 1968-69 mentioned that Ranjit Singh was a member of the H.U.F. with the petitioner, which was later retracted by the Assessing Authority. The court observed that this assertion lacked substantial evidence and was not supported by the facts. It clarified that the petitioner, no longer associated with the H.U.F., could not challenge the assessment orders based on this ground.

Relief due to the petitioner: The court partially allowed the petitions, directing the Assessing Authority to determine if the petitioner had inherited any assets from the deceased partner for recovering the outstanding arrears. The court prohibited the arrest of the petitioner during the recovery process, citing a precedent. It reiterated that other partners remained liable for meeting the demands, leaving the option open for the Assessing Authority to recover from them. The relief granted to the petitioner was limited to the clarification and proper procedure for recovery, without altering the assessment orders.

In conclusion, the court granted partial relief to the petitioner, focusing on the proper determination of assets inherited and the valid issuance of demand notices. The judgment emphasized adherence to legal procedures and the correct identification of liabilities in such cases.