E. M. MUTHAPPA CHETTIAR vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER SPECIAL CIRCLE, COIMBATORE

CIVIL APPEAL No. 107/1956Supreme Court[1961] 1 S.C.R. 78821 September 1960Bench: 5 JudgesAuthor: S.K. DAS, M. HIDAYATULLAH, K.C. DAS GUPTA, J.C. SHAH, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR14 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The appellant, a partner in the firm Muthappa & Co., was assessed for Excess Profits Tax for the periods of the calendar year 1942 and January 1, 1943, to March 4, 1943. The assessment order was passed on March 31, 1951, after notices were served on the managing partner, Thyagrajan Chettiar. The appellant contended that the firm had been dissolved on March 4, 1943, and that notices served thereafter on the managing partner did not bind him. He also argued that no demand notice under Section 29 of the Indian Income-tax Act was served on him, making recovery under Section 46(2) invalid. The High Court dismissed his writ petition, and an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the appellant could not plead a prior dissolution of the firm to invalidate the assessment. Even if the partnership stood dissolved on the date of assessment, his position would not be different. The unit of assessment under the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, was the business, not the firm. An order of assessment passed after notice to the managing partner was valid and binding on the appellant under Section 44 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as modified. Regarding the recovery, the Court held that a separate notice of demand under Section 29 of the Indian Income-tax Act, specifically addressed to the appellant, was not necessary for recovery under Section 46(2). The notice served on the managing partner was considered notice to the appellant by virtue of Section 63 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, made applicable by Section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940. The appellant was considered an "assessee" within the meaning of Section 29 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and an "assessee in default" under Section 46(1), making the tax due an "arrear" under Section 46(2). Consequently, the proceedings for recovery were held to be proper, and the High Court's dismissal of the appellant's petition was upheld.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order for Excess Profits Tax for the periods of the calendar year 1942 and January 1, 1943, to March 4, 1943, is valid and binding on the appellant, considering the alleged dissolution of the firm on March 4, 1943, and notices served only on the managing partner. Assessee's contention: The firm was dissolved on March 4, 1943. Notices served thereafter on the managing partner are not binding on the appellant. The assessment is therefore invalid. Revenue's contention: The assessment is valid and binding on the appellant. The appellant is precluded from pleading prior dissolution, or alternatively, the assessment is valid even if the firm was dissolved, as the business was the unit of assessment and notices to the managing partner were sufficient under Section 44 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as modified. 2. Whether the tax assessed could be recovered from the appellant under Section 46(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, without a separate notice of demand specifically addressed to him under Section 29 of the Act. Assessee's contention: No notice of demand under Section 29 was served on the appellant. Therefore, he cannot be considered an "assessee in default" and the tax cannot be recovered under Section 46(2). Revenue's contention: A separate notice of demand to the appellant was not necessary. The notice served on the managing partner was sufficient notice to the appellant by virtue of Section 63 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, made applicable by Section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940. The appellant is an "assessee" within the meaning of Section 29 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, due to the proviso to Section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 8,Section 11,Section 21,Section 29,Section 44,Section 46(2),Section 23(5)(b),Section 63

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS KM. MUTHAPPA CHETTIAR v. [1961] THE I~;Clr'.fE-TAX. 0F.FICE!{, SPECIAL CJRCLE, COIMBA'.lORE (S. K. DAs, .M. Hm.u ATULLAli, K. C. DAs GuPTA, J.C. SHAH and N. H.UAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.) .

Excess l'rofits 1'ax-Assesstnent by service of nnt~·ces on manag- rng partner--Validity-lf bindi11g on ti" other partner-Tax. if can be recovered by issue of cutijicaJe-E.<crss Profits Tax Act, I940 (XV of I940), ss. 8, IJ, 21-Indian Income-:ax Act, 1922 (XI of I922), SS. 29, 44, 46(2).

The firm consisting of the appellant and another, carrying on managing agency business, was on March 31, 1951, assessed to excess profits tax for the year 1942 and the broken period from January, 1943 to ~larch 4, 1943· The prescribed notices were served not on the appellant but ori the other partnc= who, under the terms oi the partnership deed, was the managing partner.

On March 4, 1943, the managing partner gave notice of dissolu- tion of the firm and thereupon the appellant sued him for dis- solution from such date as might be specified by the court. The trial Court upheld the dissolution as and from the date notified by the managing partner but on appeal the High Cou

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 8

All 98 judgments and leading authorities on Section 8 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →