M R PUNJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point in the present revision petition is that the summons could not be issued against the petitioners as they were not responsible for the affairs of the company. Some of the petitioners were not even partners of the company at the relevant time. Hence the complaint filed against them is liable to be quashed.

(2.) In order to appreciate the contention the brief facts are that petitioners I to 3 were partners of the firm working under the name and style of M/s. Dayagen. The said partnership firm consisted of six partners and they remained so till 7th August, 1987. Thereafter, on account of some dispute among the partners the partnership was dissolved. It was re-constituted with effect from 7th August, 1987 with the four partners. This re-constituted firm further changed its constitution on 15th November, 1989 when one of the partners retired from the same leaving behind three partners. None of the petitioner was a managing partner of the firm during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1988-89 nor had any knowledge regarding the affairs and responsibilities of the reconstituted firm. Even prior to the re-constitution of the firm, none of the petitioner acted as a managing partner or acquainted himself/herself with the income Tax matters nor was incharge of/or responsible for the conduct of the business of the. firm.

(3.) In the complaint filed by the respondent, the allegations are that the reconstituted firm did not submit its return of the total income-tax for the accounting year 1988-89 which was due to be submilted by 30th June, 1988. The re-constituted firm also did not comply with the provisions of Section 142(1) of the Act for which an assessment order under Section 144 of the Act was passed on 7th March, 1991. For these two defaults, the respondent No. 3 filed the impugned complaint. The learned Additional Metropolitan Magistrate on the basis of the said complaint, took cognizance and issued summons to the petitioner to appear. It is mentioned in the complaint that the accused No.8, Shri V.P. Punj (who is not the petitioner herein) was the proprietor of the firm M/s. Dayagen and that he was associated with the firm since March, 1988 and had been looking after the day to day business of the firm. He was the one who signed the income-tax returns and filed the documents on behalf of the re-constituted firm relevant for the accounting year 1988-89. The notice under Section 142(1) was also served on accused No.8, Shri. V.P. Punj and so was the show cause notices. These facts would show that the petitioners had no part to play nor were having any knowledge of the proceedings relating to the assessment of the reconstituted firm for the accounting year 1988-89.