9911796707
TMI Blog1967 (2) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stration of the business known as "Kishanchand Govindram" showing himself as the proprietor. In column 2 of the application for registration, Shri Kishanchand included the name of his brother Govindram as the person having interest in the business; but the words in column 2, namely, "names and addresses of partners" were scored out. The business for which the certificate was applied was cloth business. When this application was presented, it appears that an enquiry was instituted. In the enquiry it was found that Jeewatram, the father of Kishanchand and Govindram, was carrying on the business of cloth from before 1952 as a karta. In the year 1952 it was found that the turnover of the business of the joint family exceeded Rs. 25,000. The lia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that a partnership business is not a separate legal entity and therefore the attempt by the appellant to show that the so-called partnership business made up of two brothers who were members of a Hindu undivided family was separate from that run by the karta of the family prior to the coming into being of this business cannot be accepted." 4.. Before the Board of Revenue only two grounds were pressed, namely, (i) that the business done by "Kishanchand Govindram" was not in continuation of the business done by their father Jeewatram; and that the firm of "Kishanchand Govindram" is a distinct and separate legal entity; and (ii) that on the basis of the reports and the decisions of the Sales Tax Authorities, Jeewatram himself was not liabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... involved in the case. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal was in error in rejecting the application under section 44(1). Under section 33 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act in the case of a joint Hindu family, when the business of that family is discontinued, all its members are made liable, though the tax liability is confined to the period during which the joint family business was carried on. But, in that case the assessee would be the joint family as such, and not the business started by some of the members of the family, after the discontinuance of the joint family business. Though the individual members can be assessed as dealers with respect to the joint family business, as their liability is joint and several, they shou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... am could be made liable for the business of the joint family when the joint family as such was not proceeded against? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment proceedings shall be deemed to be proceedings against Kishanchand and Govindram only as members of the joint family and not as partners of the business "Kishanchand Govindram"? (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Sales Tax Authorities that the business "Kishanchand Govindram" is a continuation of the joint family business and not a separate business is justified in law? 7.. The Sales Tax Tribunal (Board of Revenue) is directed to draw up a statement of the case and refer the abovesaid questions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
