Is number the said approach and view against the principles of Partnership Act, and the ratio of the decision reported in 21 STC 72 and 14 ITR 272 ?
In the light of admitted or proved fact that the partners of the assessees firm and that of the firm K.K.K. Saw Mills are the same, was the Appellate Tribunal justified in its view that there is numberbar in there being two firms with the same partners, carrying on business independently ?
The Sales Tax Officer took the view that as both Messrs. K. Kelukutty and Messrs. K.K.K. Sons Saw Mills companysisted of identical partners, the two businesses carried on respectively by them had to be treated as the business of a single partnership firm and, therefore, the turnover of the sale of saw dust had to be included in the earlier assessments made on the respondent firm.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.2.1978 of the Kerala High Court in T.R. C. No.
T. Desai A.C. for the Respondent.
The Revenue applied to the High Court in revision, Tax Revision Cases Nos.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
He found that during the assessment years 1968 69 and 1969 70 they had sold saw dust from the mill, but had number been assessed to sales tax on that turnover.
It companysists of six partners.
It filed returns of its taxable turnover for the assessment years 1968 69 and 1969 70 under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, and the assessments were companypleted by the Sales Tax Officer.
The respondent, Messrs. K. Kelukutty is a partnership firm dealing in timber.
6 and 9 of 1977, on the following two questions Was the Appellate Tribunal justified in law in holding that the reasoning in the decision reported in 70 ITR 843 is applicable to the instant case and directing a further investigation and denovo disposal of the matter, in the light of the observations companytained in paragraph 15 of the order ?
2585 and 2586 of 1978.
J. Francis for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATHAK, J. These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment and order dated February 14, 1978 of the High Court of Kerala dismissing two tax revision petitions arising out of assessments made under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.
6 and 9 of 1977.
The assessment orders were upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax.
Subsequently, the Sales Tax Officer discovered that the partners of the respondent firm owned a Saw Mill, and the Saw Mill was run by a partnership firm Messrs. K.K. Sons Saw Mills which companysisted of the same partners as the respondent firm.
Thereafter, the appeals filed by the respondent firm before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal were allowed by its order dated March 30, 1976 and the cases were remanded for fresh companysideration.
