AMIR CHAND Vs. SALES TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by proceedings against him for recovery of sales tax assessed by the Sales Tax Officer against a firm, Messrs Kapoor Bros., for the assessment year 1957-58. The petitioner alleges that he was not a member of the firm, was not disclosed by it as such, and he had no notice of the assessment proceedings or of the consequent notice of demand.

(2.) THE petitioner carries on business under the name Madan Lal Jitendra Kumar at Agra. He is assessed to sales tax in respect of that business. It is alleged that one Pran Nath Kapoor carried on business under the name Messrs Kapoor Bros. The dealer was registered at Firozabad under section 8-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act and a registration certificate for the assessment year 1957-58 was issued. It was issued upon an application made under rule 54 by Pran Nath Kapoor in which he declared himself to be the sole proprietor of the business. It is said that certain proceedings of assessment for the months of October and November, 1957, were made against Messrs. Kapoor Bros., and that they were subsequently set aside upon a writ petition filed by Pran Nath Kapoor, as proprietor of the business. It is also alleged that Pran Nath Kapoor as proprietor of Messrs. Kapoor Bros., filed returns for the assessment year 1957-58 and that on the basis of the returns an assessment order was made on 31st July, 1958, for that assessment year. In the assessment order, the Sales Tax Officer considered the question as to who was owner of the business, and he found that it was owned by the petitioner and Pran Nath Kapoor. He determined the sales tax payable by the firm at Rs. 2,50,000.

(3.) ON the same date he issued the notice to the petitioner in the assessment proceeedings for the year 1958-59 stating that the petitioner carried on the business in the name of Messrs. Kapoor Bros. That was denied by the petitioner. The Sales Tax Officer, however, maintained that Messrs. Kapoor Bros., was a partnership consisting of the petitioner and Pran Nath Kapoor and made an assessment order for the year 1958-59 accordingly. An appeal was filed by the petitioner against the assessment order, and the Judge (Appeal) set aside the assessment and remanded the case. It is said that the proceedings are still pending.