9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 581X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recovery. The recovery proceedings, hence, shall be kept in abeyance till the orders of assessment are served. - WRIT PETITION NOS. 20704 TO 20707 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 6-11-2009 - MRS. CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J. R. Raghavan for the Petitioner. K. Subramanian for the Respondent. ORDER Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman, J. The petitioners challenge the notices of demand issued by the first respondent in Writ Petn. Nos. 20704 and 20706 of 2009, dt. 28th July, 2008 respectively as well as the summons issued by the first respondent, in Writ Petn. Nos. 20705 and 20707 of 2005, dt. 18th Sept., 2009 respectively. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that one Ganesan was carrying on business in sand quarrying under a licence gran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with reference to the notice under s. 158BD of the Act dt. 17th Feb., 2005 issued to the AOP as well as the said Ganesan and the further proceedings on this aspect. 4. The consistent stand of the petitioners was that they were never a party to the AOP and that the sand quarrying business was the individual business of Ganesan. The petitioner in Writ Petn. No. 20704 of 2009 sought for copies of statements of one Selvam and others as well as that of V.N. Swaminathan, petitioner in Writ Petn. Nos. 20706 and 20707 of 2009, who were stated to have admitted the existence of the AOP. Since there was no response, when the third respondent called upon the petitioners to submit their objections to the proposal to assess the income, the petitioners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch stated that in the case of any association or BOI, notice may be sent either by post or as if it were a summons issued by a Court under the CPC, 1908, to the principal officer or any member thereof. In the circumstances, since notices were already issued to the said Ganesan, it is a compliance of the provisions of the Act. Hence, it could not be stated that no notice was served on the petitioners. 7. I do not agree with the said submission of the learned standing counsel for the simple reason that right from the beginning, the petitioners have been questioning the assessment as an AOP, as they were never members of the AOP. It is not denied by the respondents that they have not produced the list of members of association. The reliance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
