Partnership property and separate firm liability limit recovery for tax arrears where only one partner is common.

A distinct partnership firm could not be treated as liable for another firm's sales tax arrears merely because one partner was common to both, so recovery from the second firm's assets was impermissible. The text also states that specific partnership property cannot be attached as if it were the exclusive share of a defaulting partner, because partners are jointly interested in the whole of the partnership assets and no partner owns any identified asset separately. Accordingly, a creditor of an individual partner must proceed against the assessee firm's property or the partner's separate property, not against specific partnership assets of another firm.

---

---

Issues: Whether sales tax arrears due from one partnership firm could be recovered from the property of another partnership firm merely because one partner was common to both firms, and whether any specific asset of partnership property could be attached as the share of a partner for recovery of the partner's liability.

Analysis: The petitioner firm was found to be a distinct legal entity from the Nagpur firm, with the only common feature being one common partner. That circumstance by itself did not establish identity between the two firms or create a common liability enabling recovery of the Nagpur firm's tax from the Madras firm's assets. The attempt to attach specific items of partnership property on the footing that they represented the share of the defaulting partner was also rejected, because partners are jointly interested in the entirety of partnership property and no partner can claim any specific asset as his exclusive property. A creditor of an individual partner cannot proceed against specific partnership property as though it were separately owned by that partner.

Conclusion: Recovery from the Madras firm's property was impermissible, and the respondents were required to proceed only against the property of the assessee firm or the separate properties of its partners.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the impugned recovery action against the petitioner firm's property was not sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Partnership property cannot be attached or sold for recovery of a debt due from one partner, and a distinct partnership firm cannot be treated as liable for another firm's tax arrears merely because of a common partner.

---