The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P1 demand notice issued under the Revenue Recovery Act. The facts in the writ petition would disclose that Ext.P1 notice was issued pursuant to assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1992-1993, that was completed against a partnership firm, in which the father of the petitioner and his uncle were partners. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner's father died in the year 1973 and the uncle died in the year 1986, and the petitioner is now sought to be proceeded against for the liability of the said firm, solely on account of the fact that one of the partners of the said firm was the petitioners father. Ext.P1 revenue recovery notice is therefore impugned in the writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that it seeks to proceed against the petitioner, who has absolutely no connection with the business that was carried on by the partnership firm, and is therefore illegal to that extent.
2. In a counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 3 to 5 it is stated that the revenue recovery notice was served on the petitioner based on a requisition received from the Collector, Trade and Tax, Vyapar Bhavan, I.P.Estate, Delhi, for a recovery of an amount of Rs.4,95,973/- from Sri.K.M.Varghese who was the defaulter to the said authority. It is pointed out that since the defaulter had expired, the Revenue Recovery Proceedings were initiated against the legal heirs of the deceased defaulter.
3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I find that in the instant case, although Ext.P1 revenue recovery notice has been served on the petitioner, the basis of the demand raised against the petitioner is not revealed in the said notice. Although there is an indication, in the documents produced in the writ petition, that the petitioner is sought to be proceeded against for an alleged liability of the partnership firm in which the petitioner's deceased father was one of the partners, there is no clarity as to how the petitioner could be proceeded against for the dues of the said firm. The first and 2nd respondents, who could have thrown some light in this matter, have not filed any counter affidavit in this writ petition, despite notice having been issued to them, and an appearance memo having been filed on their behalf as early as on 28.02.2012. Under these circumstances, I am constrained to hold that the respondents have not established the legal basis on which they can proceed against the petitioner for the liability of the partnership firm that did business in New Delhi during the assessment year 1992-1993, and of which the petitioner's deceased father was one of the partners. In that view of the matter, therefore, I quash Ext.P1 notice served on the petitioner, for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,95,973/- together with interest and other charges, and allow this writ petition. No costs.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns