(1.) IN these appeals against the order of our learned brother, Seshachelapati J., issuing a writ of mandamus directing the appellant to make an apportionment of the tax payable by the Hindu joint family of the respondents as contemplated by S. 25A(2) of the INdian IT Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the controversy rages round the question as to the consequences that flow from an order under S. 25A of the Act recognising a partition as having been effected from an earlier date.
(2.) IN order to appreciate the contentions urged by the respective parties, it is necessary to narrate the material facts briefly. The first respondent in the two appeals and one Venkatanarasu along with their father, Krishnappa, constituted an HUF. The family was carrying on business in mining. For the years 1941-42, 1942-43, 1943-44, 1944-45, 1945-46 and 1946-47 the family was assessed to tax. Assessments for the years 1941-42 to 1946-47 were made on 30th Sep., 1947, 30th Sept., 1948, 28th Feb.,1949, 15th March, 1950, and 30th Nov., 1950, respectively. The assessments for the years 1941-42 and 1942-43 were subject to reassessments under S. 34 of the Act. The total tax imposed on this family was Rs. 65,750.
(3.) THESE petitions were opposed by the Department on various grounds, the chief of them being that the petitioners could make no complaint of the notice demanding from them the whole of the tax due and payable by them, since the partition was made in June, 1952, long after the assessments were made. It was also urged by the learned counsel for the Department that the petitioners were not entitled to pray for the issue of a writ of certiorari, as the notices were not judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings but were purely administrative or ministerial acts.