SWAMY AND COMPANY Vs. DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals are preferred against a common order dated September 19, 1994, passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. Nos. 9380 to 9382 of 1987. As the learned single Judge has dismissed all the three writ petitions, the petitioners have come up by way of these appeals.

(2.) PURSUANT to the direction issued by the Commercial Tax Department, in respect of sales tax arrears to the tune of Rs. 5, 35, 621 due from M/s. Vigneswara and Venkateswara Corporation, in which K. Nelliappan, is one of the partners, to the bank, it has informed the petitioners that it has to comply with the directions of the Commercial Tax Department and remit from the petitioners-firm's account the arrears of sales tax payable by M/s. Vigneswara and Venkateswara Corporation, as Mr. Nelliappan is also one of the partners in the petitioners' firms.

(3.) IT is contended before us that to the extent of the interest of the said Nelliappan in the petitioner-firms, the sales tax arrears due from the Vigneswara and Venkateswara Corporation, in which the said Nelliappan is a partner, can be recovered but not to the extent affecting the interests of other partners. IT may be pointed out here that in M/s. Yamakays & Co., the said Nelliappan has only five per cent interest, whereas in M/s. Swami & Co., he has got 55 per cent share (interest) and in M/s. Balaji Forwarding Agencies, he has 80 per cent share. The Commercial Tax Department can proceed against these partnership firms only to the extent of shares of interest held by Nelliappan and not beyond that. Sections 25 and 26 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, cannot be interpreted so as to enable the Commercial Tax Department to proceed against the interest of others, who are not shown to be in any way liable to pay any amount to Nelliappan or to M/s. Vigneswara and Venkateswara Corporation. Therefore, we find it difficult to agree with the view taken by the learned single Judge. Accordingly, these writ appeals are allowed and the order passed by the learned single Judge dated September 19, 1994, in W.P. Nos. 9380 to 9382 of 1987 is set aside. The above writ petitions are disposed of in the following terms.