2016 (9) TMI 535

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... claim filed by the appellant  was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority and upheld  the same by the Commissioner mainly on the ground that the refund claim was made by M/s. A. K. Associates, a proprietary firm of Shri.  Kishor Hiralal Daga whereas  the Service  Tax for which refund was sought  for was paid by Shri.  Kishor Hiralal  Daga.  It was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se the proprietary firm and proprietor of the firm is one and the same, they are not two different entities.  As admitted, the PAN number is given in the name of proprietor and not in proprietor's firm's name.  For all the purpose of Income tax, Bank Account the PAN number of the proprietor is recognized as there being no separate PAN for proprietary concern in the present case M/s. A.K.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ground.  It is a  common sense  that there is  no separate  legal status of proprietary  concern.  For all legal purpose, it is the proprietor only has locus standi for any operation of the proprietorship firm.  Therefore  I hold that refund is not liable to be rejected  on the issue  of proprietor Shri. Kishor Hiralal  Daga and propriet....