Satish Chandra, J.
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against proceedings for the recovery of sales tax from the petitioner.
2. On 20th October, 1956, the Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Rae Bareli, framed an order of assessment for the year 1954-55 stating the name of the dealer to be Sri Mohammad Shafiq son of Sri Abdul Ghaffar Khan, licensee of Mazdoor Biri Parishad, Kaiperganj, Rae Bareli. He determined the assessee's turnover to the best of his judgment at Rs. 50,000 and on that basis levied a sales tax of Rs. 1,562-8-0. In due course recovery certificate was issued for the recovery of sales tax. In pursuance of these proceedings the respondents have issued a warrant of arrest against the petitioner.
3. The petitioner challenges the validity of these proceedings on the ground that the Mazdoor Biri Parishad, Rae Bareli, was a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926. The union was formed to organise the workmen working in the biri making industries and to promote their interest and organise its activities for their welfare. The union is alleged to have set up a biri manufacturing unit. Some of the members contributed money for setting up the biri manufacturing unit. The petitioner was appointed the manager of this manufacturing unit. Biri manufacturing was carried on during the assessment year 1954-55. It did not succeed or could be run successfully with the result that it was closed down in December, 1955. It has been alleged that the Biri Mazdoor Parishad itself came to an end in 1961. The petitioner's case in the writ petition is that the registered trade union called the Biri Mazdoor Parishad conducted the biri manufacturing business. The Parishad was liable for the sales tax payable on the turnover of this business. Since the petitioner was solely an office-bearer of the trade union he was not personally liable to pay the sales tax. Under the proceedings for the recovery of sales tax as arrears of land revenue due against the registered trade union the petitioner could not be arrested. In this connection learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Kastha Kala Udyog Sahkari Samiti Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. 1970 A.L.J. 395.
4. It is well settled that the status of the assessee is determined in the assessment proceedings. The authorities conducting the recovery proceedings cannot change or alter the status of the assessee. If it has been determined that the assessee is liable to pay, he cannot in the course of recovery proceedings refuse liability to pay on the ground that in truth or in law he was not the assessee. This question cannot be agitated or adjudicated in recovery proceedings.
5. There is no allegation that anyone filed an appeal against the assessment order dated the 20th October, 1956. In that order the assessee was described as Mohammad Shafiq, namely the petitioner. In the body of the order it was stated that Mohammad Shafiq obtained the licence of tobacco in his own name for manufacturing biri. He had been carrying on business in the name of Mazdoor Biri Parishad, Rae Bareli. On these findings it is clear that the assessee is Mohammad Shafiq and not the Mazdoor Biri Parishad. That being so, Mohammad Shafiq is liable to pay the sales tax demanded as he is the assessee. If he had a grievance he should have agitated the matter in revision or in appeal against the assessment order. He cannot agitate this question in recovery proceedings. The present writ petition is not directed against the assessment order. It is not open to the petitioner to challenge the finding that he was the assessee in the proceedings for recovery.
6. The petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.