1967 (3) TMI 86

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... died in December, 1963. This controversy does not, however, make any difference so far as the present case is concerned. On 25th June, 1964, the Assessing Authority passed an order of assessment of sales tax for the accounting period 1960-61, i.e., for the year ending 31st March, 1961, creating a demand for Rs. 5,449.61 against the partnership firm; According to the respondent there was another outstanding demand of Rs. 209.56 in respect of the year ending 31st March, 1960. The amounts in question not having been paid, a recovery certificate was issued, in pursuance of which the Assistant Collector First Grade and Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar, Issued notice dated 24th February, 1965 (copy annexure 'B' to the writ petition), requir....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the impugned order of the Assistant Collector of 25th March, 1965, and to restrain the respondent from putting the petitioner under arrest in pursuance of the recovery order. The Motion Bench (S.B. Capoor and I.D. Dua, JJ.), while admitting the writ petition on the day that it was presented, issued notice in the stay matter, returnable for 2nd April, 1965. On the last-mentioned date the question of stay was decided by P.D. Sharma, J., after hearing both sides. The learned Judge by his detailed order suspended the operation of the impugned order. In the written statement of the Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar, the facts that Milap Singh and Kirpal Singh constituted a partnership firm and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ely because he was a member of such a family. Reliance has in this connection been placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court (Bishan Narain and Grover, JJ.) in Kuldip Singh v. Tehsildar, Amritsar[1958] 34 I.T.R. 164. In that case it was held that section 69 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act is meant to apply to natural persons and not to artificial persons, and arrears of land revenue cannot be recovered under that provision from a defaulter, who was a mere legal entity but not a natural person, by his arrest, detention or confinement in jail. The Division Bench judgment of this Court is a complete answer to the otherwise untenable defence of the respondent to the attack on the impugned order. In my opinion, the learned Assistant Colle....