2004 (5) TMI 541 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of tax liability on an illegal partnership.
2. Liability of a minor in the partnership for tax dues.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Tax Liability on an Illegal Partnership:

The petitioners received a notice under the Revenue Recovery Act for tax dues amounting to Rs. 9,92,025 for the assessment year 1986-87. They contended that the partnership formed to exploit an arrack blending license issued to one S. Sewak was illegal and thus not liable for taxation under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The partnership was formed despite the prohibition against such arrangements under the license terms. The Tribunal dismissed their petition, stating it was a clear case of tax evasion.

The High Court examined various precedents to address whether an illegal partnership can be taxed. It cited cases like [1948] 16 ITR 412 (Mad.) (Mohamad Abdul Kareem Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax), where it was held that an association of persons formed in contravention of Abkari Law was still liable to tax. Similarly, in [1957] 31 ITR 457 (Mad.) (V.K. Kumaraswami Chettiar v. Additional Income-tax Officer, Madras), an illegal abkari business partnership was held liable for tax. Further, in [1996] 217 ITR 746 (SC) (Bihari Lal Jaiswal v. Commissioner of Income-tax), the Supreme Court ruled that an illegal partnership could be taxed, although it could not claim registration under the Income-tax Act.

Based on these precedents, the Court concluded that the illegal partnership in question could indeed be taxed under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, dismissing the petitioners' arguments to the contrary.

2. Liability of a Minor in the Partnership for Tax Dues:

The first petitioner claimed he was a minor during the relevant assessment year and thus could not be held liable for the tax dues. However, the Court found discrepancies in his statements about his age. Initially, he claimed to be a minor during 1986-87, but later documents showed he became a major in 1985. The Court branded the petitioner as a "classic liar" for attempting to evade tax liability by falsifying his age.

The Court referred to [1968] 67 ITR 106 (SC); AIR 1968 SC 317 (M.M. Ipoh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras), which held that there is nothing in the Act indicating that a minor cannot be a member of an association of persons for tax purposes. The Court thus rejected the argument that a minor cannot be held liable for tax dues as part of an association of persons.

The Court also noted that the first petitioner failed to claim that he did not receive any profits from the business, indicating his involvement and benefit from the partnership. Additionally, the petitioner falsely claimed that his father was not part of any partnership business, further undermining his credibility.

Conclusion:

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that:
- An illegal partnership can be taxed under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act.
- A minor can be a member of an association of persons for tax purposes and thus liable for tax dues.
The petitioners were ordered to pay costs of Rs. 5,000 to the first respondent.

← Previous Next →