9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (8) TMI 347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in C.W.P. No. 3060 have only been noticed. The notice referred to above was issued to the petitioners on the basis of certain enquiries conducted into the business transactions of M/s. Garg Trading Company, respondent No. 4, whose sole proprietor was Suraj Bhan son of Kali Ram. As per the Assessing Authority these enquiries revealed that the petitioners had been conducting their business "in partnership" with the said firm. The operative part of the notice reads as follows: "You are, therefore, directed to show cause by attending my office on 27th April, 1982, at 10 A.M. situated on 3rd floor, Mini Secretariat, Hissar, as to why you should not be declared as dealer under section 53 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, in connec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioners, urges that on the one hand the Assessing Authority has held the petitioners to be partners of respondent No. 4, i.e., M/s. Garg Trading Company, Uklana, and on the other, has declared them to be the dealers under the Act in their own right. The submission appears to be wellfounded. As already indicated the tax liability as well as the penalty has been imposed on respondent No. 4. In case the petitioners are partners of that firm then their liability to pay the tax and the penalty as partners is automatically theirs. In that situation there is no question of them being declared as dealers. In case their business transactions have to be assessed as dealers and not as partners of respondent No. 4, then on account of their bus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of of Shri T.L. Kundur, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, recorded on 13th and 17th of May, 1982, a letter dated 27th October, 1982 (running into seven pages), and the statement of Shri Des Raj son of Nathu Ram who is alleged to have voluntarily appeared before him on 28th October, 1982, and deposed about the alleged partnership of the petitioners with respondent No. 4 and this material was never put to the petitioners nor were they allowed to cross-examine or challenge the veracity of these witnesses in any manner. As a matter of fact all this material was collected by the Assessing Authority behind their back. The latter two pieces of evidence appear to have been collected by this officer even after his hearing the final arguments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
