1967 (12) TMI 53

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... hereinafter called the "firm", commenced at Hathras the business of manufacturing cotton yarn in a factory owned by it. In 1944 a partner of the firm filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Agra, for dissolution of the partnership and for accounts. During the pendency of the suit, the court appointed a receiver of the business of the firm. On July 21, 1949, the Government of U.P. passed an order purporting to exercise power under section 3(f) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1949, appointing the appellant, Seth Sheo Prasad, "authorised controller" of the undertaking of the firm and directing him to take over possession of the factory to the exclusion of the partners, the receiver and the managers and to run the undertaking sub....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tax, and the High Court quashed the proceedings for recovery of sales tax from the applicants. The Sales Tax Officer thereafter by notice dated April 2, 1959, called upon the appellant to pay Rs. 1,01,487.16 paise as sales tax due by the firm. The appellant then moved a petition in the High Court of Allahabad for an order quashing the notice dated April 2, 1959, and the recovery proceeding. It was the case of the appellant that in selling the products of the factory, he was acting as authorised controller under the orders first of the State Government and thereafter of the Central Government and not on his own behalf and that the proceeding against him for recovery of tax assessed against the firm was illegal. A Single Judge of the High ....