9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (11) TMI 186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sted of the following partners: (1) Suresh Chandra Kar, (2) Paresh Chandra Kar, (3) Naresh Chandra Kar, and (4) Ramendra Narayan Kar. This partnership firm carried on business and it was registered under section 5 as a dealer under the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as the "Act" on 14th April, 1964. Suresh Chandra Kar and Paresh Chandra Kar retired from the firm M/s. Kar Brothers and intimated this fact to the Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri, on 18th November, 1965. Notwithstanding the retirement of Suresh Chandra Kar and Paresh Chandra Kar, the firm M/s. Kar Brothers continued with the remaining partners. The petitioners' further case is that subsequently on 4th December, 1964, another partnershi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... September, 1966, 30th September, 1967, 31st March, 1968, 30th September, 1968, and 31st March, 1969, and the amount of tax demanded is Rs. 20,050.51. Mt. B.K. Das, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, firstly submits that petitioners Nos. 1 and 2, against whom the present Bakijai proceedings have been started, retired from the firm M/s. Kar Brothers on 14th April, 1964, and this fact was intimated to the Superintendent of Taxes on 18th November, 1965, and, therefore, petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 ceased to be partners of M/s. Kar Brothers with effect from at least 18th November, 1965, and, therefore, petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 were not at all accountable for any dues under the Act payable by M/s. Kar Brothers, which is the dealer i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... examined the materials on record and we do not find any material to bring the case of retirement of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 from the dealer-partnership firm within clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 32 of the Indian Partnership Act. So also there is nothing in the record to show that either the partnership is at will or notice was given in writing to all the other partners by petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 of their intention to retire from the partnership firm. In the same way we do not find any material to bring the case of retirement of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 from the dealer-partnership firm under sub-section (4) of section 32. That being so, even assuming that an information was given to the Superintendent of Taxes that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eads as follows: "23. (3) Where a dealer is in default, the Commissioner may order that amount due shall be recoverable as an arrear of land revenue and may proceed to realise the amount due as such." Since there is no legal evidence before us to conclude that petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 legally retired from the dealer-partnership firm, M/s. Kar Brothers, they cannot escape the liability of the partnership firm of which they still continue to be the partners in the eye of law. That being so, the dues under the Act may be recovered from the two petitioners, namely, Suresh Chandra Kar and Paresh Chandra Kar. Since petitioner No. 3, Smt. Maya Rani Kar, was not a partner of M/s. Kar Brothers, there is no question of any dues payable by her ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
