Skip to content


Nand Lal Vs. Tax Recovery Officer, Range-ii and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Writ Petition No. 1944 of 1981
Judge
Reported in(1982)30CTR(P& H)327; [1982]135ITR176(P& H)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 189(3)
AppellantNand Lal
RespondentTax Recovery Officer, Range-ii and anr.
Appellant Advocate S.S. Mahajan and; N.K. Jain, Advs.
Respondent Advocate D.N. Awasthy and; B.K. Jhingan, Advs.
Excerpt:
.....the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. - act, because that provision clearly lays down that a partner is liable to meet the tax liability of the firm......the tax recovery certificate has been issued against the firm only and not against the individual partner/partners of the firm. it is not disputed that if the partner or the partners are not able to meet the liability, then they can be sent to civil prison in execution of that certificate. in such a case, the citizen is likely to be put into jail pursuant to a tax recovery certificate wherein his name is not mentioned. we, therefore, accept the second contention and hold that an individual partner cannot be proceeded against on the basis of a tax recovery certificate issued in the name of the firm. it shall, however, be open to the department to issue such a certificate against the petitioner or his co-partners for making the impugned recovery. 4. with the aforementioned observations,.....
Judgment:

1. A grievance has been made in this petition that on the basis of the tax liability against a firm, an individual partner cannot be made liable. It is further submitted that pursuant to a tax recovery certificate issued against a firm the tax cannot be realised from an individual partner.

2. So far as the first point is concerned, it deserves to be answered against the petitioner in view of Section 189(3) of the I.T. Act, because that provision clearly lays down that a partner is liable to meet the tax liability of the firm.

3. There is, however, some merit in the second submission made by Mr. Mahajan. In the instant case, the tax recovery certificate has been issued against the firm only and not against the individual partner/partners of the firm. It is not disputed that if the partner or the partners are not able to meet the liability, then they can be sent to civil prison in execution of that certificate. In such a case, the citizen is likely to be put into jail pursuant to a tax recovery certificate wherein his name is not mentioned. We, therefore, accept the second contention and hold that an individual partner cannot be proceeded against on the basis of a tax recovery certificate issued in the name of the firm. It shall, however, be open to the department to issue such a certificate against the petitioner or his co-partners for making the impugned recovery.

4. With the aforementioned observations, the petition stands disposedof.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //