9911796707
TMI Blog1969 (9) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m transacting business in cloth at Vijayawada. Pachipulusu Venkata Subba Rao, who is one of the partners of the said firm, also has his personal business which he carries in the name and style of Messrs Pachipulusu Venkata Subba Rao. Messrs. Pachipulusu Venkata Subba Rao and Co., the firm, filed a return in regard to their turnover for the assessment year 1956-57. According to this return the turnover was Rs. 5,82,828-10-0. Since the Commercial Tax Officer was not satisfied with the correctness or completeness of this turnover, he issued a notice under rule 12 calling upon the assessee to produce the account books on 28th March, 1961. This notice was issued in the name of Messrs. Pachipulusu Venkata Subba Rao and not in the name of Pachip ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l by its order under revision accepted the contention of the appellant that no notice was served upon the firm and, therefore, the order of the Commercial Tax Officer dated 31st March, 1961, is illegal and cannot be enforced against the firm. It is this view that is now assailed in this revision by the department. The principal contention of the learned Government Pleader is that the notice was properly issued and validly served. The Commercial Tax Officer's order, therefore, cannot be said to be illegal or unenforceable. In order to appreciate the implications of this contention, it is necessary to mention that the notice under rule 12, which was issued not in the name of the firm but in the name of the proprietary concern, was tendered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the notice. For the issue of a notice, it is rule 12 which is applicable. According to that rule, in cases where returns are submitted but the Commercial Tax Officer is not satisfied with regard to its correctness or completeness, he is directed by that rule to give the dealer a reasonable opportunity of proving the correctness or completeness of the return. In order to give a reasonable opportunity to the dealer, the dealer must be served with a notice. The dealer being the firm in this case, the notice ought to have been directed in the name of the firm. It will thus be clear from what is stated above that not only the notice was not issued in the name of the firm but was wrongly issued in the name of the proprietary concern of a part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
