TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (8) TMI 822
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rted as a partnership firm consisting of the petitioner, Mr. Saravanan and Ms. Vasanthaammal. The said partners resigned from the partnership on March 31, 2004 and therefore, the petitioner became the sole proprietor of the said concern. Consequently, the firm was dissolved on August 23, 2005 and virtually there was no business transaction. Thereafter, the petitioner started a new business in the name and style of "Surya Marketing" and later on the said business was also closed. Pipes India was an assessee under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and the said company issued 3 cheques to the respondent towards tax liability and the total worth of the said company is Rs. 16,113. Out of Rs. 16,113, the petitioner paid tax to the tune of Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner is ready and willing to pay the resale tax and arrears of tax, the respondent ought to have considered the bona fides of the petitioner and ordered for adjustment of the amount as stated supra. According to him, the reasons for invoking the attachment proceedings and demanding interest is mala fide and therefore, the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice. For the abovesaid reasons, he prayed to set aside the same. Based on the counter-affidavit filed by the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Madurai, Mr. K. Balasubramanian, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents submitted that the petitioner-firm is an assessee in the books of the respondent having Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Registration No. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s rejected by the respondent for the following reasons: "(i) Regarding adjustment of refund amounting to Rs. 3,581 the said refund stands in the name of the partnership firm, M/s. Pipe India, Madurai in which the firm consists of three partners including the petitioner. The other partners have not given their consent to adjust the refund amount towards the arrears due from M/s. Surya Marketing, Madurai. (ii) Regarding adjustment of security deposit of Rs. 2,000, the petitioner's firm consists of two partners. But one of the partner/the petitioner alone has signed in the letter. The remaining partner Thiru R. Senthilkumar has not given his willingness to adjust the security deposit towards the arrears of tax. The learned Additio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Government Pleader submitted that all the partners are having right over the refund amount for the assessment year 2003-04 and hence consent of all the partners was insisted to adjust the refund amount against the arrears of tax. The learned Additional Government Pleader denied the allegations that there was personal reason or mala fide against the petitioner in rejecting the request of the petitioner for adjustment of the abovesaid amount towards the arrears of tax, agreed to be paid by the petitioner. In the abovesaid circumstances, the respondent has submitted that there is no manifest illegality in the impugned orders warranting interference. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire materials avail....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efund amount due to M/s. Pipes India Limited can be made only if all the partners are willing either to adjust the security deposit or to adjust the refund amount cannot be said to be illegal for the reason that the apprehension of the respondent that if the amounts were to be adjusted, as per the request of the petitioner, the other partners who have every right might claim the security deposit or refund of excess amount which stood in the name of their firm in future, and that there would be some difficulty, cannot be said to be without any basis. As rightly contended by the respondent that the two partners have resigned from the partnership firm from March 31, 2004 and the refund amount relate to the assessment year 2003-04. It is also t....