SHANKAR LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 55 and 56 of 1972, as these have been preferred by the same petitioner Shankar Lal and the matters involved therein are integral.

(2.) THE petitioner had a son named Ranjit Singh. This Ranjit Singh, in partnership with a few others, obtained a licence for running a brick-kiln. For the purposes of running the business of the partnership, a sales tax registration certificate was obtained for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69. The assessment proceedings were commenced at the time when Ranjit Singh was alive. During the proceedings thereof, he died. The petitioner as the father of Ranjit Singh, as also the other partners, were associated in the proceedings. Ultimately vide two orders of even date dated 30th August, 1971, Shri Bhupinder Singh, the Assessing Authority, Kaithal, came to the conclusion that the partners and Ranjit Singh deceased were jointly and severally responsible for all the liabilities under the Tax Act. The demand created for the assessment year 1967-68 was Rs. 38. 33 and for the assessment year 1968-69 was Rs. 5,164. 20 only. However, in the assessment order pertaining to the assessment year 1968-69, an observation came about, which is to the following effect:. . . Shri Ranjit Singh was a member of H. U. F. and he has expired, his liabilities are automatically transferred to Shri Shankar Lal. On the strength of the aforesaid observation coming forth in the assessment order pertaining to the assessment year 1968-69, Shri B. R. Goel, the Assessing Authority, Kaithal, issued demand notice to the petitioner requiring him to comply with the chalans for Rs. 38. 33 and Rs. 5,164. 20 respectively by a particular date. Since the demand was not met, the arrears due were certified to be collected as arrears of land revenue. The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, then on 23rd December, 1971, issued a writ of demand to the petitioner advising him that in the failure of payment, the recovery would be effected by issuance of warrant of arrest and attachment of property. It is then that the petitioner approached this Court challenging the assessment order as also the demands created respectively for both the assessment years.

(3.) IN reply, Shri B. R. Goel, the Assessing Authority, Kaithal, has controverted most of the allegations and has explained away how the liability came to be fastened on the petitioner. Significantly, in the return there is no mention that the deceased partner Ranjit Singh was ever a member of the H. U. F. with Shankar Lal, the petitioner. Rather in the return it has been positively asserted that on the death of Ranjit Singh, his liabilities stood automatically transferred to Shankar Lal because he was the father of Ranjit Singh and the latter had died issueless. Stress has also been laid therein that the liability was fastened in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act as all the assets and liabilities of the deceased partner had been transferred to his heirs. To crown it all, this stance has been repeated a number of times in the return without a trace of the petitioner constituting a joint Hindu family with his deceased son Ranjit Singh.