9911796707
TMI Blog1956 (10) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aling in tiles and ridges. Its two partners are Messrs. A.M. Fernandes and R.D. Fernandes, who are related to each other. The head office of the firm is stated to be at Ratnagiri in Bombay State and Sri R.D. Fernandes is stated to be in charge of that head office. The branch at Bunder, Mangalore, is under the management of the other partner Sri A.M. Fernandes. There have been misunderstandings between the two partners. It is stated by A.M. Fernandes that he ceased to be a partner of the firm with effect from 1st October, 1951. 4 . Inasmuch as the dealers failed to produce their accounts for check, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer issued a rule 9 notice calling upon them to show cause why they should not be assessed to tax on a turnover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sertions of A.M. Fernandes proved to be futile. 7 . Therefore, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer determined that the taxable turnover for 1950-51 was ₹ 1,11,825-12-0 to the best of his judgment on the data before him and found the tax due as ₹ 1,825-6-5, the tax paid as ₹ 330 and the tax to be paid as ₹ 1,495-6-5. 8 . This Mangalore Tile Agency did not pay the tax within the time allowed as per notice in Form B served on the first partner on 9th July, 1952, and on the second partner on 23rd April, 1952. A sum of ₹ 550 was adjusted from the refund due to the firm for the year 1951-52 and a sum of ₹ 945-6-5 was in arrears. The prosecution in S.T.C. No. 120 of 1955 under section 15(b) of the Madras Gen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he first partner was in charge of the branch and was making purchases from various tile factories at Mangalore on behalf of the firm and on instruction from the second partner and the statements of the partners P.4 and P.12 which can be used as corroborative evidence-Vide P.P.v. Doraiswami ([1955] M.W.N. 25.)-and P.7 and P.1, that the Mangalore Tile Agency can be described as a non-resident dealer and as such the assessment should have been made only on its agent in the State under section 14-A of the Act. Similarly in the lower Court it was alternatively pleaded that the accused firm is merely a commission agent for the constitutents of the Bombay State. But this contention was rightly repelled by the lower Court because this firm did not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd in the absence of such evidence we cannot speculate whether these accused persons could have been non-resident dealers or commission agents: In re Narasingamuthu Chettiar([1948] 1 S.T.C. 180; 61 L.W. (Journal Section) 64.) and Velu Konar v. The State ([1951] 2 S.T.C. 127; 1951 M.W.N. Crl. 245.). Point 2 therefore fails. 14 . Point 3: The law regarding the recovery of Crown or State debts is not as helpless as the revision petitioners seem to imagine. The consequences following the dissolution of a firm are provided for in sections 45 to 55 of the Indian Partnership Act. These sections deal with the various consequences which follow on dissolution of a firm. The important questions considered are: (i) rights of partners after dissoluti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In re Chakka Appa Rao([1948] 1 S.T.C. 211.), given prior to the amendment to the effect that the jurisdiction of the Court to go into the validity of the assessment was not taken away, nugatory. 16 . That section 16-A is intra vires has been held in the decision of Panchapakesa Aiyar, J., in In re Gigina Basha Sahib ([1950] 1 S.T.C. 240; 1950 M.W.N. Crl. 87.), of myself in Hajee Meeran v. Public Prosecutor((Crl. R.P. No. 11 of 1952).), and of a Bench of this Court in Syed Mohammed Co. v. State of Madras([1952] 3 S.T.C. 367; 1952 M.W.N. Crl. 235). It is quite true that a later Bench decision of this Court in Guruviah Naidu Co. v. State([1954] 5 S.T.C. 129; 1954 M.W.N. Crl. 237.) held that section 16-A was ultra vires. But that decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
