1982 (1) TMI 177 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Partnership firm assessment for sales tax dues.
2. Allegation of petitioner not being a partner in the firm.
3. Service of notice of assessment proceedings on the petitioner.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to a partnership firm, Radhey Shyam Lal Bahadur, registered under the Sales Tax Act in 1969, which operated an excise shop for selling liquor. The Sales Tax Officer initiated proceedings for the assessment year 1969-70 and levied a sales tax of Rs. 55,840 on the firm. Subsequently, recovery proceedings were initiated against the parties, including the petitioner Shanker Lal, who claimed no association with the firm and filed a writ petition challenging the recovery proceedings.

2. The petitioner contended that he was not a partner in the firm and had no involvement in its business activities. However, the Sales Tax Officer, based on information obtained from the excise authorities, concluded that the petitioner was indeed a partner in the firm. The Court noted that the petitioner failed to provide any substantial evidence to support his claim of non-involvement with the firm. The Sales Tax Officer had conducted thorough inquiries and had credible evidence to assess the petitioner as one of the partners, leading the Court to dismiss the petitioner's claim of non-partnership and liability for the sales tax dues.

3. Regarding the service of notice of assessment proceedings on the petitioner, it was argued that the Sales Tax Officer should have personally served the notice on the petitioner. However, Rule 77 of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules in 1969, when the proceedings took place, did not mandate individual notice to each partner of a firm. The rule required service by registered post on the firm's address, which the Sales Tax Officer complied with by sending notices twice to the firm's address. The Court found no procedural flaw in the service of notices and upheld the validity of the assessment proceedings, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the lack of merit in the petitioner's claims and the compliance of the Sales Tax Officer with the procedural requirements for assessment proceedings. No costs were awarded in the judgment.