PUGALRAJ Vs. ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE second appeals have been preferred against the concurrent judgments passed in Original Suit Nos.166 and 167 of 1995 and in Appeal Suit Nos.8 and 7 of 2001 by the District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar and by the Additional District -cum -Fast Track Court, Virudhunagar, respectively.

(2.) THE appellant herein as plaintiff has filed Original Suit Nos.166 of 1995 and 167 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar, praying to declare that he retired from the partnership firms known as S.V.S. and Co. and S.V.Shanmugananthavel on 8.9.1987 and consequently direct the first defendant not to claim arrears of sale tax from the plaintiff in pursuance of the notices issued in Na.Ka.Aa.No.3/837/90 and Na.Ka.Aa.No.3/947/90 wherein the present respondents have been shown as defendants. Original Suit No.166 of 1995:

(3.) IT is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff, fourth defendant and one S.V.Shanmugananthavel have started a partnership firm by known as S.V.S. and Co. in the year 1981. The said S.V. Shanmuganan -thavel has been a minor at the time of establishing the partnership firm and his father by name Vanniyaperumal has represented him. The plaintiff, fourth defendant and the said Vanniyaperumal have started another partnership firm known as S.V.Shanmugananthavel and Co. from the year 1977. On 2.4.1986 the said minor Shanmuganan -thavel and his father Vanniyaperumal have retired from partnership firms and subsequently, the plaintiff and fourth defendant have continued in the said firms as partners. On 8.9.1987 the account of the plaintiff has been settled and he retired from the partnership firms. From 8.9.1987 the plaintiff is not having any connection whatsoever with the partnership firms mentioned supra. On 9.7.1991 the first defendant has issued a notice in Na.Ka.Aa.No.3/837/90 and thereby directed the plaintiff to pay arrears of sale tax in respect of S.V.S. and Co. After receipt of the said notice, the plaintiff has issued a notice to the fourth defendant on 4.9.1991 and the fourth defendant has given a reply notice on 20.9.1991. In the reply notice given by the fourth defendant, it has been clearly stated that he has been running the business mentioned supra. The plaintiff has filed a Writ Petition and the same has been taken on file in Writ Petition No.15840/1991 and the same has also been disposed of. After a lapse of three years, a notice has been sent to the plaintiff wherein he has been directed to appear before the first defendant. The plaintiff has appeared before the first defendant on 31.8.1994. No enquiry has been conducted. After a lapse of six months. The first defendant has issued a notice dated 10.2.1995. The plaintiff has given a notice to the first defendant under Section 80 of Civil Procedure Code. On 27.7.1995 the first defendant has given attachment notice to the plaintiff, wherein it has been specifically directed that the plaintiff should pay arrears of sales tax in respect of S.V.S. and Co. Under the said circumstances, the plaintiff has come forward with the present suit for the relief mentioned supra.