CENTRAL GLASS FACTORYMADRASFIRM Vs. SPECIAL COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner is a partnership-firm situated in Madras doing business in the manufacture of glass under the name and style of Central Glass Works. This firm has three partners of which D. V. Shah is one. The firm was constituted under a registered partnership-deed dated 9th July, 1956, and actually started the glass factory at Madras on and from 22nd August, 1956.

(2.) D . V. Shah, one of the partners of this Madras firm, along with another partner from Nagpur had established earlier a partnership firm in Nagpur for manufacturing glass. That firm also was known as "Central Glass Works". Thus, D. V. Shah along with another partner constituted the Nagpur firm, and D. V. Shah and two others unconnected with the Nagpur firm, constituted the Madras firm. D. V. Shah remained the common factor in these two firms. On account of certain inter-State sales, the Sales Tax Authorities of Andhra Pradesh assessed the Nagpur firm to a sales tax of Rs. 1,171.87 nP. in respect of transactions which took place during the period 1st April, 1954 to 6th September, 1955. The Madras firm (petitioner herein) came into being only after this period. The Sales Tax Authorities of Andhra Pradesh after having unsuccessfully issued some notices to the Nagpur firm, proceeded to recover the sales tax due by it from the Madras firm. They attached certain movable and immovable properties of the Madras firm under section 4 of the Revenue Recovery Act as part of their effort to realise the sales tax due from the Nagpur firm. This has occasioned the filing of this writ petition under Article 226 by the Madras firm asking for a mandamus to compel the respondents to forbear from proceeding against its property to recover the tax arrear due from the Nagpur firm.

(3.) IT is then urged that the partners of the Nagpur firm including D. V. Shah are jointly and severally liable for the tax amount. It is claimed on this basis that the share of D. V. Shah in the petitioner firm can be attached and sold to realise the tax payable by the Nagpur firm of which he is admittedly a partner. This argument seems to proceed on an erroneous conception of the nature of the interest of an individual partner in the property of an existing partnership. In the eye of law, all the partners are joint owner of the entire partnership property be it movable or immovable. No one partner can point to any tangible item of partnership property as exclusively belonging to him. Therefore, it is not possible in law to proceed against any tangible property of a partnership firm on the basis that it belongs exclusively to one of the partners. Lindley in his book on Partnership, Edn. 10, at page 415, says :