TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (12) TMI 426
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etor of the business is the case of petitioners. According to the petitioners, the transaction which led to penalty levied under section 45A of the KGST Act which is impugned in all the original petitions happened during 1993-94 when the business was run as proprietorship by Mr. Danesh Kumar Gupta. The assessing officer levied penalty for alleged evasion of tax on the firm consisting of all the partners. Though the penalty levied was contested in two levels of revision, it was confirmed though in a modified form by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by order dated September 11, 1997, produced as exhibit P16 in O.P. Nos. 18411, 18423 and 18391 of 1997. I heard counsel for the petitioner and the Special Government Pleader appearing for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f a partner retires without the partnership being dissolved thereby he shall send to the registering authority a declaration in Form 3 within 30 days of his retirement, along with a copy of the deed of retirement. (c) Every dealer, including a joint family entering into or forming a partnership in regard to his business shall, within 30 days of such event happening, send to the registering authority of the area in which his principal place of business is situated, fresh application for registration in form 1 as provided in sub-rule (7) along with copies of the partnership deed and declaration in form 2 as provided in clause (a). (d) If any partnership firm is dissolved and the business is taken over by an individual, he shall apply for fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat retirement of partners and dissolution of the firm was known to the assessing officer and the continuing partner filed returns declaring the business as his proprietorship concern, the Special Government Pleader referred to exhibit P 13 wherein it is stated that the continuing partner Mr. D.K. Gupta appeared before the assessing officer on June 13, 1995 and deposed that the business was continuously carried out as a partnership concern consisting of himself and his wife with effect from 1991. However, it is stated in the said order that the continuing partner did not produce any such partnership deed with his wife as claimed by him. In these circumstances the question to be considered is whether the department is entitled to proceed aga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2002 are therefore dismissed. However, on equitable grounds I hold that recovery against retiring partners need to be made only if amount is not recovered from petitioner in O.P. No. 18411 of 1997. The attachments made however will stand unless recovery is effected. However, if recovery is not effected from the continuing partner who is the petitioner in O.P. No. 18411 of 1997, penalty and other amounts due can be recovered from the petitioners in the other original petitions as provided under section 21 of the KGST Act. The next question to be considered is challenge against exhibit P16 order in O.P. No. 18411 of 1997. Counsel for the petitioner contended that transactions with reference to which penalty is levied are consignment sales e....