Dhanpat Rai Verma vs Tax Recovery Officer and Another

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has challenged a show cause notice dated September 4, 1990, annexure 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 and others, and The Special Director and Another Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Another, , etc.

Moreover even on the merits, we find no force in this petition. Admittedly, the petitioner was a partner in the firm, M/s. Shakti Traders and Engineers, Shamli, which was dissolved on July 15, 1981. In paragraph 3 of the writ petition it is stated that the impugned demand is for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83. The assessment year 1981-82 corresponds to the financial year April 1, 1980, to March 31, 1981. Hence, the period of that assessment year is prior to the date of dissolution of the firm.

As regards the assessment year 1982-83 this corresponds to the financial year April 1, 1981, to March 31, 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.