Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.16 seconds)Sahu Rajeshwar Nath vs Income-Tax Officer, C-Ward, Meerut And ... on 4 September, 1968
4. The next question which arises is whether the petitioner can be treated as being in default so that recovery proceedings can be taken against him. If service of the notices of demand can be taken as service upon the firm, and no tax is paid consequent upon such notices of demand within the time allowed by it, the partner himself can be treated as being in default. The law is now clear that if a notice of demand has been served upon a partnership firm, it is not necessary that a further notice should be served upon the partner of the firm in order to render that partner liable for payment of tax : see Sahu Rajeshwar Nath v. Income-tax Officer, C-Ward, Meerut, [1969] 72 I.T.R. 617 (S.C.). If a partner can be proceeded against for the debts of the firm, it is clearly on the principle that he is jointly and severally liable for those debts. The liability is a personal liability and we have no doubt that for the enforcement of that liability, the partner is vulnerable to all the processes of recovery which can be taken as if it was his personal debt. It is open to the recovering authority to proceed by way of arrest of the partner. Accordingly, we hold that the petitioner is not immune from arrest in the proceedings for recovery of the income-tax dues in question.
1