STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. VIMALCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the defendant's Second Appeal from the Judgment and decree dated 14.2.1985, delivered by the Civil Judge, Gulbarga, in Regular First Civil Appeal No. 74/1974 (The State of Karnataka and Anr. v. Vimalchand and Ors.), dismissing the defendants' appeal and confirming the Judgment and decree dated 16.4.1974, delivered by the Court of II Additional Munsiff, Gulbarga, decreeing the plaintiff's suit for declaration, declaring that the plaintiffs-respondents have not been the partners of the firm : Mahaveer Automobiles, Gulbarga, as well as for the decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from making any recovery of the arrears of tax assessed on the firm - Mahaveer Automobiles from the person and property of the plaintiffs-respondents, in O.S.No. 33/1972.

(2.) The plaintiffs' claimed themselves to be the real brothers. They alleged in the plaint that they have no concern or dealing with the aforesaid firm - Mahaveer Automobiles, Gulbarga. The plaintiffs-respondents further alleged that plaintiffs have neither been partners of the firm nor have got any concern with the firm. But, in the notices issued for the recovery of the arrears of tax assessed on M/s Mahaveer Automobiles, Gulbarga, the defendants of the suit have wrongly shown the plaintiffs' names of the said firm and issued the notices calling upon the plaintiffs-respondents to pay the arrears of sales tax assessed on the firm. That in the notices issued to the plaintiffs, the Commercial Tax Officer, has wrongly shown the plaintiffs- respondents as liable for the arrears of tax relating to the business of the firm with which the plaintiffs did never have any concern or contact. That the plaintiffs made various representations to the defendants have started recovery proceedings against the plaintiffs which is illegal. That as such the plaintiffs issued the notice under Section 80 C.P.C., but, no reply was received from defendants.

(3.) Finally, plaintiffs have asserted that in the above circumstances, the plaintiffs-respondents had filed the suit for declaration and injunction as above. That in the plaint, the plaintiffs have further alleged that the defendants appellants had no authority to start the recovery proceedings regarding arrears of tax against the plaintiffs-respondents, particularly, when the plaintiffs had not been the partners of the firm nor did the plaintiffs have any concern with the same.