9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 1067X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... received by the Department well before the assessment year 2002-2003. It is also not in dispute that in the penalty proceedings initiated for the said period, the appellant was not shown as partner of the firm that was proceeded against. Still further, in the assessment proceedings against the firm, the partner who was admitted to the partnership in lieu of the appellant was also shown as a partner of the firm that was proceeded against - the said actions on the part of the Department would by themselves indicate that the Department was in the know of things and in particular of the fact that the appellant had ceased to be a partner of the firm in 2000 itself. The acceptance by the Department of the retirement deed, and their knowledge w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceased to be a partner in the firm with effect from 17.10.2000, and the fact of his retirement from the partnership firm had been intimated to the respondent authorities under the Kerala General Sales Tax (KGST) Act, he was served with Exts. P5 and P6 assessment orders for the assessment year 2002-2003 under the KGST and Central Sales Tax (CST) Acts respectively, demanding inter alia an amount of ₹1,64,37,149/- towards differential tax demand. This was followed by Exts. P7 and P8 revenue recovery notices which showed him as a partner of the firm, who was jointly liable along with other partners for discharging the dues of the firm towards sales tax liability. It was his case in the writ petition that in view of the fact that he had r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant to the alternative remedy in circumstances where the factual aspect of whether or not the appellant had retired from the partnership firm in 2000 was admitted by the respondents. She relies on Ext. P3 retirement deed, the receipt of which is not denied by the respondents, as also the fact that in the penalty proceedings initiated by the respondents in the same year against the partnership firm, the appellant was not shown as a partner, to point out that the Department was well aware that the appellant had ceased to be a partner in the year 2000 itself and therefore, could not be proceeded against for recovery of the tax in the assessment year 2002-2003. She also places reliance on the judgment in Pratap Singh v. Shri Krishna G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... writ appeal must succeed. It is not in dispute that the retirement deed that showed the appellant as having retired from the partnership firm in the year 2000 was received by the Department well before the assessment year 2002-2003. It is also not in dispute that in the penalty proceedings initiated for the said period, the appellant was not shown as partner of the firm that was proceeded against. Still further, in the assessment proceedings against the firm, the partner who was admitted to the partnership in lieu of the appellant was also shown as a partner of the firm that was proceeded against. In our view, the said actions on the part of the Department would by themselves indicate that the Department was in the know of things and in par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
