9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (12) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the two partners of the said firm. His elder brother, Sardar Saran Singh, was the other partner. The ITO issued recovery certificates to the TRO, Kanpur, and the details of such certificates are set out in para. 5 of the petition. However, the opposite parties in the counter-affidavits have not accepted the correctness of the details given in the said para. In para. 4 of the counter affidavit of Sri V. K. Arora, the TRO-B, Kanpur, it has been stated that the correct figure of the total demand against the firm was Rs. 4,82,280 and against the two partners of the said firm the respective figures were Rs. 6,55,077 and Rs. 4,03,720. Thus the total demand against the partnership firm and its partners is said to exceed Rs. 15,00,000. It is not n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the said communication the terms and conditions were set out. In para. 3 of the said communication it was stated " as for removing the lock and seal on your main gate and godown, necessary instructions are being issued to the Tax Recovery Officer-B, Kanpur," and in para. 4 it was stated " you will please immediately inform this office the date from which your factory starts functioning." It is the contention of the petitioner that despite the aforesaid agreement between the parties, the TRO and the Department began to enforce the entire demand and sought to attach and sell the house of the petitioner bearing number 122/208 Sarojini Nagar, Kanpur. It is claimed that the opposite parties are acting in contravention of s. 220(3) of the I.T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... towards the tax dues payable by them. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to consider Shri Katju's other contentions, including the one which he has based on [1956] 29 ITR 792 (Punj) (CIT v. Lala Rajeshwar Parshad) for contending that the facility of instalment which was granted by annex. V to the petition, addressed to the petitioner and his brother and the partnership firm in question, was administrative in nature and as such was not amenable to the certiorari jurisdiction of this court. In our view, the petitioner was himself in default in complying with the terms and conditions laid down in annex. V to the petition and as such is not entitled to the relief claimed in the petition. This petition, accordingly, fails and is di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
