9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (2) TMI 287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jaipal Ajaipal, Hamirpur, carried on business in foodgrains and oilseeds. For the period from 1st April, 1969, to 30th September, 1969, the business under this name was carried on by one Jaipal and Ajaipal, petitioner No. 1. With effect from 1st October, 1969, the business was carried on by a new firm constituted of Jaipal and three others. Ajaipal, petitioner No. 1, is a minor and Sukhnandan, petitioner No. 2, is his father and guardian. For the aforesaid assessment year 1969-70 two assessments were made under the U.P. Sales Tax Act for the aforesaid two periods. Subsequently those assessments were reopened under section 21 of the Act and the reassessment orders were passed for the two periods separately on 30th November, 1974. Aggrieved, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, 1969. As a consequence thereof, no recovery proceedings can be taken against petitioner No. 1. We do not find much substance in this contention. In the first instance it has not been averred that this partnership was evidenced by any instrument in writing so that it may be possible to say that it was a case of partnership firm coming into existence for the aforesaid period. It appears that the business was carried on in the name of M/s. Jaipal Ajaipal. It may be that a minor cannot enter into a partnership but there is no restriction on his being a member of an association of persons and this fact could not be disputed before us on behalf of the petitioners. At the relevant time, "dealer" as defined in section 2(c) of the Act was stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals filed against the assessment orders made under section 21 of the Act recorded a finding of fact that the demand notices and copies of those assessment orders were served on Jaipal on 19th December, 1974. This finding has been affirmed by the Additional judge (Revisions), who is the last fact-finding authority. It is, thus, a finding of fact which cannot be challenged in writ proceedings before this Court. Thus, it has been found that the demand notice and copies of the assessment orders for the period in dispute were served on Jaipal, one of the members of the association. This being so, the view taken by the appellate authority that the appeals were barred by time was absolutely correct. There is no merit in this writ petition and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
