High Court Of Allahabad
Dhanpat Rai Verma vs. Tax Recovery Officer & Anr.
Section 189
Asst. Year 1981-82, 1982-83
M. Katju & R.S. Tripathi, JJ.
Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 1219 of 1990
17th March, 2004
Counsel Appeared :
Vikram Gulati, for the Petitioner : Bharat Ji Agrawal, Ashok Kumar & S. Srivastava, for the Respondents
JUDGMENT
BY THE COURT :
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has challenged a show cause notice dt. 4th Sept., 1990, Annex. 10 to the writ petition. This Court ordinarily does not interfere with show cause notices, vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board vs. Ramesh Kumar Singh (1995) 8 JT 331 (SC) and Special Director vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse AIR 2004 SC 1467, etc. Moreover even on merits, we find no force in this petition. Admittedly, the petitioner was a partner in the firm, M/s Shakti Traders & Engineers, Shamli, which was dissolved on 15th July, 1981. In para 3 of the writ petition, it is stated that the impugned demand is for the asst. yrs. 1981-82 and 1982-83. The asst. yr. 1981-82 corresponds to the financial year 1st April, 1980 to 31st March, 1981. Hence, the period of that assessment year is prior to the date of dissolution of the firm.
As regards the asst. yr. 1982-83 this corresponds to the financial year 1st April, 1981 to 31st March, 1982. Hence, at least during part of this financial year, the petitioner was a partner of the firm.
The petitioner is liable to pay income-tax dues at least regarding the period till the date he was a partner in the firm. Hence, there is no illegality in the impugned demand.
As regards the statement in para 5 of the dissolution deed that Shri Ashok Kumar Mittal has taken over the assets and liabilities of the firm that in our opinion will not affect the statutory liability of the petitioner. A statute overrides a contract. Hence, if there is a statutory liability on someone to pay certain dues he cannot enter into a contract with someone else transferring his liability to that person. Such contract will be ignored by the tax Department. Thus, there is no force in this petition. It is dismissed accordingly. Interim order, if any, is vacated. Any amount already deposited by the petitioner shall be adjusted.
[Citation : 268 ITR 215]
