Law:

Section:

Section 226, read with section 189, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 46, read with section 44, of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] – Collection and recovery of tax – Other modes of recovery – Assessment years 1957-58 to 1960-61 – Whether immunity from being proceeded against partner for realization of amount assessed on firm could not be considered to extend to cases where, under provisions of Act, there is joint and several liability cast on partner for amounts due by way of tax from firm – Held, yes – Petitioner was partner in two firms, one of which was dissolved and other discontinued its business – Under Government orders he was granted refund of certain amount, collected as sales-tax – ITO and TRO prohibited Sales tax Officer under section 226(3) of 1961 Act from refunding sales-tax to petitioner on ground that certain sum was due from said firms on account of income-tax, penalty etc. – It was found that in accordance with law for time being in force, petitioner was jointly and secuerally liable for balance of income-tax due from firm – Whether on facts, prohibitory orders issued by ITO and TRO had to be upheld – Held, yes FACTS The petitioner was a partner in two firms, one of which was dissolved in 1953 and the other discontinued its business in 1960. The Govt. ordered certain refund to the petitioner, of a sum collected as sales tax from him. The respondent No. 1 ITO and the respondent No. 2 TRO issued notices under section 226(3) of the 1961 Act prohibiting the respondent No. 3. Sales tax Officer from making payments due to the petitioner for the reason that certain sum was due from firm, on account of income-tax penalty, etc. and that amounts due to the petitioner from him had to be applied to satisfy the claims towards the arrears of tax. On writ, the petitioner submitted that it had not been shown that any amount was due to the department from the petitioner personally and therefore, impugned orders restraining the petitioner from receiving the amount due to him from the 3rd respondent, could not be sustained in law, and they had to be quashed holding them to be illegal and to have been issued without jurisdiction. HELD By…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492