1971 (3) TMI 7 - HC - Income Tax

Order of attachment of immovable property passed - petitioner is seeking for a writ of prohibition against the respondents from giving further effect to the impugned notice - facts undoubtedly disclose that the respondent who issued the impugned order did have jurisdiction in law to act and exercise his power in the manner he did - such a power being available to the Tax Recovery Officer, no writ of prohibition can issue - petition dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of order of attachment of immovable property by the 2nd respondent.
2. Jurisdiction of the Tax Recovery Officer in issuing the impugned order.
3. Claim of the petitioner regarding his non-involvement in the business of Standard Starch Manufacturing Company.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a writ of prohibition against an order of attachment of immovable property passed by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner claimed he was not responsible for the demand raised under the Income-tax Act as he was not involved in the business of Standard Starch Manufacturing Company. The revenue initiated proceedings under section 34 of the Income-tax Act due to non-submission of returns by the firm. The petitioner argued that he was associated with a different trading style and had no connection with the assessed firm. However, the court found that there was a genuine mistake in the trading style as it was actually "Standard Starch Products Company." The court held that the assessment proceedings were valid as there was an established nexus between the partners of the unregistered firm and the commercial activity, making the petitioner liable for the demand.

2. The court discussed the issuance of a writ of prohibition, emphasizing that it is only applicable when there is a total absence of jurisdiction on the part of the statutory tribunal to exercise the power assumed. In this case, the court found that the Tax Recovery Officer had jurisdiction to act and issue the impugned order. The court determined that there was no complete absence of jurisdiction on the part of the Tribunal, and as such, no writ of prohibition could be issued. Therefore, the court dismissed the writ petition.

3. The judgment highlighted that the business was conducted by the petitioner and others under an oral partnership at a specific location. Despite the petitioner's claim of non-involvement in the business of Standard Starch Manufacturing Company, the court found that there was an absolute identity of the business place and the individuals involved in the commercial activity during the assessment year. The court noted that the partnership was not formally recorded but was evidenced by a document mentioning the petitioner as a partner of Standard Starch Products Company. This evidence established the nexus between the partners and the commercial activity, holding the petitioner liable for the demand raised by the revenue authorities. The court concluded that the petitioner could not escape the consequences of the assessment and recovery proceedings, leading to the dismissal of the petition.