9911796707
TMI Blog1964 (4) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal No. 482 of 1963, - - - Dated:- 3-4-1964 - SUBBA RAO K., SHAH J.C. AND SIKRI S.M. JJ. A. Ranganadham Chetty, Senior Advocate (B.R.G.K. Achar and R.N. Sachthey with him), for the appellant. S.T. Desi, Senior Advocate (T.A. Ramachandran and J.B. Dadachanji, O.C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain of J.B. Dadachnji and Co. with him), for the respondents. -------------------------------------------------- The judgment of the Court was delivered by SIKRI, J.- The State of Madras (the State of Andhra Pradesh was substituted by order dated April 9, 1954) filed a suit against six defendants- (1) Messrs Hussain Bhoy Sons and Co., Bombay; (2) Yacoob Hussain Bhoy by power of attorney agent Atlaf H. Laljee; (3) Haroon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ai Lalji, father of defendants two to five, and not to defendants two to five, or defendant No. 1, the firm, constituted by the defendants two to five. The said Hussain Bhai Lalji was not even a partner in the said firm. The High Court granted a certificate under Article 133, and now the appeal is before us. The learned counsel for the appellant addressed us on the point decided against the appellant by the High Court. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondents raised the point that the whole basis of the suit was the assessment order dated March 31, 1946, but this was not an assessment order made against any of the defendants. He said that before a suit can be filed for the recovery of a tax levied or determined by an assessment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice issued or served upon the respondents nor was the order of assessment made in regard to the respondent-firm and the irregularities vitiated the assessment". The appellant had thus notice of the contention. Let us now see whether there is any force in the point that the assessment order, A-3, dated March 31, 1946, was made against any of the defendants. The relevant part of the assessment order reads thus: "Enquiry shows that during 44-45 Ghee Supply Company supplied ghee during the earlier part of the year and that Hussain Bhai Lalji, Hornby Road, Bombay, was approved as ghee supplier to the Military during the latter part of the year. This company did not send either A-1 or A form for their turnover in ghee during 44-45; as a mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R. P. on 20-3-46 with acknowledgment due." It seems to us that the assessee or the dealer assessed was Hussain Bhai Lalji and not any of the defendants. Mr. Chetty, however, drew our attention to two sentences, viz., 'the company did not send either A-1 or A form..............' and 'There is no reason to fix the turnover of this company at a lesser amount'. We, however, think that on a fair reading of the assessment order it was the contractor Hussain Bhai Lalji who was assessed. In reply to the notice A-1, the secretary to Hussain Bhoy Lalji, M.L.A., wrote as follows: "Navsari Building, Hornby Road, Fort, Bombay, 3rd April, 1947. Special Dy. Commercial Tax Officer, Guntur. Dear Sir, Your latter dated 19-3-1946, addres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
