S M SULIGAVI Vs. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE I CLASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions are, presented by the petitioner under subsection (4) of S. 13 of the Karnataka, Sales Tax Act, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The facts of the case in brief are as follows: The petitioner was a partner along with three others, of a partnership firm under the name and style of Ganesh Trading Company at Bagalkot. It is not in dispute that the firm was dissolved in or about the year 1975. Thereafter by virtue of the power vested in the authority under the Act under sub-section (2) of S. 15 of the Act assessments were made against the dissolved "firm for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76. Thereafter, applications were filed under S. 13(3) (b) of the Act before the court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bagalkot, for the recovery of the tax due from the firm. In the application though the firm was shown as respondent, in the note below the application, the names and addresses of all the four partners were furnished. After the application was filed the Magistrate passed orders attaching the properties of the partners. .Thereafter, the petitioner and another filed their objections before the Magistrate objecting to the legality of the proceedings. The objection was that as the petitioner and another had only 35 per cent share in the dissolved firm, their liability to pay the tax was only to that extent and therefore the entire tax due could not be recovered from them on the ground of default in payment of tax by the, firm. The objection was overruled by the learned Magistrate on, the ground that the liability of the partners of a dissolved firm was joint and several and if the entire tax due from the firm was recovered from the petitioner and another, their remedy was to obtain reimbursement from other partners by taking appropriate proceedings. Aggrieved by the said orders of the learned Magistrate, these two revisions petitions have been presented to this Court.

(2.) In the revision petitions, the main contention urged by the petitioner is that the application filed under S. 13 (3) (b) of the Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate was not preceded by a notice of demand served on the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner was not a defaulter in terms of S. 13 (2) of the. Act and consequently, the proceedings before the Magistrate was without the authority of law.

(3.) In the meanwhile, it appears the Magistrate had sent requisition to the revenue authorities for taking action to recover the tax due by selling the properties attached and accordingly properties of some of the partners have been sold and the auction purchasers have got themselves impleaded as respondents to these revision petitions.