Registration

Whether appellant being a restaurant was liable to be registered under S. 24 of Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011 ('the Act 2011')?

Appellant claimed exemption as per Notification No.SRB-3-4/7/2013 dated 18.06.2013 ('Notification SRB-2013')

Held: Bare reading of Notification SRB-2013 categorically showed that services provided or rendered by restaurants and caterers are taxable in case its turnover exceeds 3.6 million rupees in a financial year or their total utility bills (gas, electricity and telephone) exceed Rs.40,000/- in any month during the subject financial year

In the present case , although appellant's turnover did not exceed 3.6 million rupees in the subject financial year but its total utility bills remained Rs.48,482/- i.e. exceeding Rs.40,000/- in the month of August 2022

Therefore, the appellant was liable to be registered under S. 24 of the Act 2011

Appellate Tribunal Sindh Revenue Board maintained the findings of Commissioner - Appeal

Appeal, filed by Registered Person, was dismissed.

Petitioner challenged the registration certificate and Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) Certificate of the trade union of workers of Irrigation Department

Contention of the petitioner was that Government Departments of GoB were taking steps for cancellation of registration of trade unions existing in different Government Departments in compliance with a judgment of High Court, thus, Registrar, NIRC, had committed illegality not only by registering the said union, but also by issuing CBA Certificate to the said union

Validity

Previously existing Trade Unions in Irrigation Department, GoB were subsequently unregistered in compliance with a judgment of High Court

Preamble of Industrial Relations Act, 2012, (IRA, 2012) provided the scope of IRA, 2012, which was enacted to rationalize the law relating to formation of Trade Unions, federation of Trade Unions and determining the Collective Bargaining Agents relating to establishments located in Islamabad Capital Territory and in trans-provincial industry

Definition of "industry-wise trade union" means a Trade Union having its membership in more than one Province in a group of establishments owned by one employer, thus, considering the definition, the workers of Irrigation Departments, GoB, did not qualify the definition of either "trans-provincial establishment" or "industry-wise trade union"

Industrial Relations Act, 2012, mentions "trans provincial" as any establishment, group of establishments, industry having its branches in more than one Province, therefore, the employees of Irrigation Department, GoB, or its Canal Division could not be termed as "workers of trans-provincial establishment" or "industry-wise trade union"

Apart from this the "employer of Pakistan Canal Labour Union Balochistan" was GoB and the Federal Government had no nexus with the administration of Irrigation Department, GoB, thus, the Registrar Trade Unions, NIRC had no jurisdiction or authority to register the Pakistan Canal Labour Union Balochistan under the IRA, 2012

Constitutional petitions were allowed, in circumstances.

Power to register tenancy agreement lies with Special Judge (Rent) in his capacity as Rent Registrar who is required to enter particulars of tenancy in a register, affix his seal on tenancy agreement and retain its copy

Functions of Rent Registrar are limited to registration of tenancy agreement

Rent Registrar is obligated not to carry out such functions mechanically and may require "prima facie proof of ownership" from landlord.

Petitioner / trans-provincial establishment was aggrieved of registration of respondent trade union by Provincial authorities on the plea that the workers who formed respondent trade union were out sourced work force and were employees of third party contractors

Contention of respondent trade union was that registration had already been made by Provincial authorities and petitioner had an alternate remedy under S. 43 of Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013

Validity

By virtue of Art. 143 of the Constitution, provincial industrial relations law would be overridden

Even if registration of respondent trade union under Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013, was lawful at the relevant time, if it was subsequently established that the petitioner was a trans-provincial establishment, the registration of respondent trade union under Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013, would be overridden and then, all other grounds raised for challenging such registration recede to the background, and the question whether S. 43 of Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013, had provided an alternate remedy to petitioner also did not arise

Petitioner was a trans-provincial establishment, which fact had already been established by way of registration certificate issued under Ss. 9 & 10 of Industrial Relations Act, 2012 to trade union of the workers of petitioner's establishment, and certificate of CBA issued to the same trade union under S.19 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012

Such certificates were not disputed by respondents and manifested that petitioner was recognized as a trans-provincial establishment by Registrar Trade Unions under Industrial Relations Act, 2012

Registration certificate issued to respondent trade union under Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013, stood overridden or superseded by subsequent certificate issued under Ss. 9 & 10 of Industrial Relations Act, 2012 and the former certificate was of no further legal effect

Proceedings under S. 24 of Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013, pending before Registrar to determine CBA in relation to petitioner's establishment stood abated

High Court directed Registrar of trade unions under Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013, to amend his register accordingly

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Contention of the appellant / taxpayer was that the sales tax could not be charged for the period in which the taxpayer was not registered

Validity

Expression "registered person" appearing in Cl. (b) of S. 65 of the Sales Act, 1990, included the person liable to register as provided in S.2(25) of the Act, 1990

Had there been no need of charging / paying / recovery of sales tax prior to registration, the Legislature should not have prescribed a mechanism for granting exemption in case the person liable to register had failed to collect tax because of inadvertence or some general practice in the relevant sector of economy or a particular area

Legislature never intended to enact that legitimate amount of sales tax pertaining to the tax period prior to actual registration was not recoverable from a person who was liable to register and had been treated by the law as registered person by fiction of law

Appellant / taxpayer had not denied the factum of doing business as wholesaler/ retailer and making taxable supplies

Taxpayer had also not denied purchases of sugar, in the matter-in-hand, from the Sugar Mill as un-registered buyer as confronted in the Show Cause Notice ,rather only claimed to be un-registered person during the alleged period and pleaded the matter mainly on legal premise

Contention of the appellant / taxpayer was misconceived as sales tax could be charged for period prior to compulsory or voluntary registration subject to limitation

Both the authorities below had rightly charged and upheld sales tax demand

Appeal filed by the taxpayer was dismissed, in circumstances.

Section 24 of the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011 provides that registration shall be required for all persons who are residents and provide services, listed in the Second Schedule, from their registered office or place of business in the province

Section 24B, Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011 provides that if a person is required to be registered under the Act and that person has not applied for registration, the officer of the Provincial Board of Revenue shall, after such enquiry as he may deem fit and after notice, register the person through an order to be issued in writing and such person shall be deemed to have been registered from the date he became liable to registration.

Persons who are not registered under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 fall in two distinct classes: firstly, those who are not required by law to be registered under the Act and secondly, those who are liable to be registered under the Act but have failed to register

For purposes of "further tax" or "extra tax" under the Act, any interpretation that refuses to take into account the said classification and purports to impose these taxes on both classes of persons renders the same taxes ex-facie discriminatory thus in violation of Art.25 of the Constitution

Discrimination in such a case would ensue from the lack of classification and similar treatment extended to dissimilarly or differently placed persons

Likewise, burdening those with imposition of "further tax" and "extra tax" who are not liable to be registered under the Act results in violation of the fundamental rights of property, as guaranteed by Arts.23 & 24 of the Constitution.

Petitioners were engaged in production and sale of "ice" which admittedly stood exempted under S.13 read with item No. 27 of the Sixth Schedule of the Sales Tax Act, 1990

Petitioners assailed the applicability and charging of "further tax" under S.3(1A) and "extra tax" imposed pursuant to SRO No.509(I)/2013, dated: 12-06-2013 issued under S.3(5) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990

Validity

Subsection (1) of S.14 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, stipulated compulsory registration of persons involved in the making of taxable supplies, including zero rated supplies, in the course or furtherance of any taxable activity carried on by them if their business fell in one or more of the categories specified therein

Subsection (1) had no application to the case of the petitioners as they were not involved in making any taxable supplies, including zero rated supplies

No provision in the Sales Tax Act, 1990, required the petitioners to be registered

Object and purpose of S.3(1A) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, imposing "further tax" on a person who failed to obtain registration number was to incentivize that person to register or else pay more tax

Such was based on underlying assumption that the person to be burdened with "further tax" was under a lawful obligation to obtain registration number and had for some reason failed to do so

Such "carrot and stick" policy was to induce a person to register and enforce the legislative intent of registering persons making taxable supplies

On a policy level, the wisdom behind this was to move towards a more documented economy and expand the tax base

"Further tax" under S.3(1A) was not intended to apply to and penalize those who made only exempt supplies and were not liable to be registered under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, otherwise the same would defeat the very intent, object and purpose of the levy

Purpose of levying "extra tax", in addition to the tax under subsection (1) of S.3 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, was to charge the said tax from those persons who, despite being liable to be registered, had failed to do so

High Court observed that a restrictive meaning was to be assigned to the application under Ss.3(1A) & 3(5) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, read with SRO No.509(I)/2013, dated: 12-06-2013 to those cases where the person was liable to be registered but had failed to register

Constitutional petitions were allowed

Section 24 of the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011 provides that registration shall be required for all persons who are residents and provide services, listed in the Second Schedule, from their registered office or place of business in the province

Section 24B, Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011 provides that if a person is required to be registered under the Act and that person has not applied for registration, the officer of the Provincial Revenue Board shall, after such enquiry as may deem fit and after notice, register the person through an order to be issued in writing and such person shall be deemed to have been registered from the date he became liable to registration.

No authority or power has been given by the statute, i.e., S.15 read with S. 33 of Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Ordinance, 1962 to make Regln. 48 of Pakistan Registration of Medical and Dental Practitioners Regulations, 2008 to restrain foreign medical qualified doctors to get registration as medical practitioner after passing required National Examination Board Examination (NEB).

Combined reading of Ss.2(25) & 23 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 and R.6 of Sales Tax Rules, 2006 showed that where a person was required to be registered under Sales Tax Act, 1990 as envisaged under S. 14 of Sales Tax Act, 1990; he was under obligation to apply for registration and in case of failure, Department should issue a notice to such person and after allowing him an opportunity of being heard it would pass an order whether or not such person was liable to be registered compulsorily or not

Where a person was liable to be registered, Department was required to register compulsorily and then charge sales tax from such person under S. 3(1)(a) of Sales Tax Act, 1990.

Registration of sales tax was refused on the ground that it was already registered for sales tax purposes and it had status of non-filer; and directed that missing sales tax returns be filed along with penalty @ Rs.5000 for each month of default as well as default surcharge

Complainant clarified that cited Sales Tax Registration Number was that of the predecessor "Association of Persons" and not that of the successor company and that the predecessor "Association of Persons" not having done any business since 30-6-2008 was not required to file sales tax returns for the subsequent period; and as a matter of caution, 'Nil' returns were filed but sales tax registration number was not issued

Revenue contended that Directors in the company were also partners in the "Association of Persons" by the same name; that "Association of Persons", an existing registered sales tax person, did not file sales tax returns after 30-6-2008 and was directed to file missing returns and also pay penalty assessed at Rs.5000 for each month the default lasted; that returns were filed but penalty or default surcharge were not paid; and that being pending full compliance of its directions by the "Association of Persons" the Department did not issue Sales Tax Registration Number to the company/complainant

Validity

Department did not issue Sales Tax Registration Number to the company only because the defunct "Association of Persons" by the same name as the company did not pay penalty and default surcharge for sales tax periods for which returns were filed belatedly

Under the law, complainant was a distinct corporate entity quite apart from the defunct predecessor "Association of Persons" and could not be denied as Sales Tax Registration Number as it needed the same in order to be able to import machinery for its own use

Denial of the same had prevented the company from importing machinery and conducting its business effectively

Department must deal with the defunct "Association of Persons" separately

Saddling it with sales tax liability by way of penalties and default surcharge when it was evident that it did not transact any business after 30-6-2008 and made no taxable sales and also filed "Nil" Sales Tax Returns during the period 2008 to 2012 was arbitrary and oppressive

Delay in issuance of Sales Tax Registration Number to the complainant company was tantamount to maladministration

Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended Federal Board of Revenue to allow Sales Tax/Federal Excise Duty registration to the complainant company in accordance with law.

Husband of assassinated political leader was sitting President of Pakistan and her real son was Chairman of the political party who was not only highly educated but foreign qualified

None of them neither objected the contents of F.I.R. nor they questioned result of investigation

Even other family members of deceased also by their conduct showed satisfaction on the result of investigation

When trial had commenced, charge had been framed and statements of some of prosecution witnesses had already been recorded

Order for registration of second F.I.R. was not warranted under the law

Petitioner could not claim himself as aggrieved party, therefore, petition was not maintainable

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of sale agreement in respect of the disputed property against predecessor-in-interest of the defendants

Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff

Appeal filed against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court was also dismissed by the Appellate Court

Contention of the plaintiff was that agreement of sale for all purposes was a registered document and carried a strong presumption of correctness under S.49 read with S.60 of the Registration Act, 1908 and until strong evidence was available on the record to rebut the presumption, the said document should occupy the field and should be deemed to be correct for all purposes

Validity

Agreement of sale even if it was a registered document, heavy burden lay upon the plaintiff to discharge the onus and prove the genuineness of the said transaction

Registered document had a sanctity to it and very strong evidence was required to challenge the genuineness of the said instrument

No evidence was available on the record to rebut the genuineness of the transaction but one thing which was very relevant was that predecessor-in-interest of the defendants was a Paradanashin lady and in case of Paradanashin lady, great care and caution should be adopted by the court

Evidence brought on the record was insufficient

Interest of justice demanded that in view of the plea taken by the defendants that their predecessor-in-interest was bed-ridden and never appeared before the Sub-Registrar, the evidence of the Sub-Registrar and the scribe was necessary

High Court accepted the revision petition and remanded the case accordingly.

Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants had sold disputed land to the plaintiffs and executed registered sale deed in their favour and that plaintiffs further purchased the additional land from the predecessor­in-interest of the defendant and had paid Rs.15,000 through cheque as consideration of the same

Defendants contested suit on the ground that in the alleged document there was a note to the effect that predecessor-in-interest of the defendants owned the entire property which was mentioned to have been sold to the plaintiffs, this according to the defendants was a forged addition and designed to deprive defendants to inherit the disputed property as legal heirs

Defendants further challenged the jurisdiction to entertain matter of demarcation

Trial Court decreed suit of the plaintiffs

Appeal filed against judgment and decree of Trial Court was also dismissed by Appellate Court

Validity

Disputed property was admittedly a residential property where plaintiffs had constructed a residential house and was occupying the same and it was nowhere alleged that same was agricultural land

Alleged note in the registered sale deed was in the same hand-writing and in the same sequence and it was a registered document which had a presumption of authenticity attached to it and that presumption was not rebutted by the defendants

Documentary evidence produced by plaintiffs was found more reliable, credible and plausible as compared to the evidence produced by defendants which mainly consisted of oral assertions unsubstantiated by documentary evidence

Defendants had failed to show that lower courts below had misread .or failed to read any piece of evidence or acted illegally or with material irregularity

Revision petition was dismissed.

Mandatory condition for exemption was the date "set up" and in accordance with "explanation" embodied in Notification S.R.O. 580(I)/91, dated 27-6-1991 as amended vide S.R.O. 561(I)/94, dated 9-6-1994, it was the date on which the industry goes into production, including trial production, and the said date was required to be intimated in writing by an intending manufacturer to the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax having jurisdiction in the area at least 15 days before commencing such production

Appellants had failed to satisfy the said mandatory condition of the notification as it neither applied for the. exemption nor satisfied the mandatory provisions of Sales Tax Act, 1990

Appellants were not entitled to claim such exemption under such S.R.Os.

Moreover, appellants were not registered person under Sales Tax Act, 1990, during the currency of such exemption notification, thus, were not entitled to claim such exemption

Further, appellants avoided registration under S.14 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 in spite of repeated notices and were compulsorily registered under S.19 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990

Appellants were not entitled to claim exemption under S.R.O.580(I)/91, dated 27-6-1991 as amended vide S.R.O. 561(I)/94, dated 9-6-1994 in the circumstances.

Department. alloted computer number but failed to issue the requisite registration certificate as data relevant to registration had not been fed into the computer by the Registration Office nor it was transferred to Central Registration Office for issuance of registration certificate

Validity

Very purpose for which the system appears to have been devised was being frustrated by tardy feeding of data and its transfer to the central registry

Undue delay had occurred due to failure to feed and transfer the relevant data to the central registry, despite complainant's requests for issuance of registration certificate

Maladministration was established

Department should complete its inquiry for appropriate disciplinary action against those found responsible for causing delay in issuance of registration certificate to the complainant

Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that Revenue Division should direct the competent authority to establish a system of inspections binding the senior officers to periodically check and monitor the working of local as well as central registries engaged in the task of processing applications for registration and issuance of registration certificates so as to eliminate snags and delays occurring in issuance of certificates of registration applied for by the assessee.

Provisional Sales Tax Registration Certificate was issued on 29-4-2004 under Sales Tax Act, 1990 on the condition that Registration certificate would be issued after verification of documents under Sales Tax Ruling/Instructions No.21/2003 dated 16-8-2003 with oral order for personal appearance

Validity

Sales Tax Registration Certificate was not issued and was delayed without reasonable explanation

Neglect and inefficiency within the meaning of S.2(3)(ii) of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000 was a maladministration

Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that Sales Tax Registration Certificate be issued and Central Board of Revenue letter bearing No.3(17)/STL &P/2003 dated 5-4-2003 be withdrawn.

Condition of claiming input tax for goods acquired 90 days before registration provided in the said section inserted vide Finance Act 1999, did not apply in the case

Adjustment of input tax paid at the time of ex-bonding the goods against the sales tax payable was correctly made.

A. P. Foreign Liquor and Indian Liquor Rules, 1970, Rr.38 & 39.

Contention of employer was that employee, who was a temporary worker, was terminated from service as he himself had submitted his resignation, whereas employee had denied fact of resignation as alleged by employer

Employee who had not denied his signature, on alleged registration had contended that his signatures were obtained by the employer on a blank paper at the time of his employment and same might have been misused by converting it into his resignation by employer

Case was remanded to be decided afresh whether employee had signed the script of resignation being aware of its contents and in a willing manner or it was all a farce in the nature of contrivance on the part of employer to get rid of employee

Employer would establish voluntary character of the alleged resignation and employee would endeavour to show the Court and prove by adducing evidence that alleged resignation was in nature of a-fabrication.

Resignation being a unilateral act need not be accepted and notified by Government and it becomes effective from date of communication to head of Department of Government if it is in praesenti or from future date if it is prospective

Where the act of relinquishment of office was of a bilateral character, it would not be effective until it is accepted.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25-A A 38(3).

S. 17(1) (c)-Partition deed-Document determining shares Registration-Document designed to determine shares of parties and not to separate their shares so as to enable parties to take possession of their respective shares-Not a partition deed-Deed in question can be held to have explained titles of parties including plaintiff Provision of S. 17(1) (c) in circumstances, held, not attracted to case and deed required no registration.

Ss. 17 & 18-Registration - Decree involving a reference to compromise and terms of decree not ascertainable without reading compromise

Compromise in such case, held, could be said to have been embodied and formed part of decree and as such not requiring registration.

S. 30 read with Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), Ss. 123 & 129-Muhammadan Law-Gift-Registration-Gifts made under Muslim law-Expressly excluded from operation of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 by virtue of S. 129-Formalities prescribed by Muslim Law being completed with, valid gift, held, could be effected even orally or under an unregistered instrument-Possession of gifted land having been delivered by donor to donee and donee having accepted same, gift, held, valid and suggestion of majority award being vitiated by error of law apparent on face of record mis-founded.-[Muhammadan Law-Gift].

Registrar under no obligation to verify contents of documents sought to be registered.

Deed would not transfer interest in property either In favour of person named indeed or in favour of subsequent donee transferee from such person.

Best Judgment-Regisiration firm refused Validity-Partner signing partnership deed as karta of H. U. F. No H. U. F. in existence-Whether he becomes partner in individual capacity.

Income-tax-Firm-Registration-Death of partner-Son continuing as partner-Application for renewal signed by son-Whether maintainable-Effect of change in constitution-Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, S. 26-A-Indian Income-tax Rules, 1922, r. 6(2).

Income-tax-Firm-Registration-Claim for registration upheld by High Court - Tribunal directing "all modifications consequential to the grant of registration" in the assessment of partners

Inclusion of income of wife and minor sons in income of partners - Legality - Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, Ss. 16(3), 33(4), (5), (6), 35(5) & 66(5).

Firm-Registration-Retirement of one partner and dissolution of firm during accounting year- Procedure Registration for part of accounting year-Legality-Construction of su5sequent deed-Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, S. 26-A.

Firm-Registration-Partnership of three persons carrying on sale of wines and other businesses also-Licence for sale of wines in one partner's name-Whether partnership wholly void and registration can be refused - Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, S. 26-A.

Registration Failure to make return and produce accounts Application for registration Maintainability Power to make best judgment assessment and refuse registration Indian Income tax Act, 1922, Ss. 22(4), 23(4) & 26-A.

Partnership formed before accounting year-Deed executed during accounting year-Whether deed takes effect from the beginning of accounting year-Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, S. 26-A.

Registration-Death of partner-Minor sons admitted to benefits of partnership in place of deceased-Jointly entitled to deceased's share-Partnership whether could be registered -Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, S. 26-A-[Chhotalal Devchand v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1958) 34 I T R 351 dissented from].

-Partnership between coparceners of Hindu undivided family representing the family with strangers-Validity-Nature of such partnership-Whether such partnership can be registered-Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, S. 26-A Indian Income-tax Rules, rr. 2 to 6-B-Indian Partnership Act, 1932, S. 5.

Omission to divide or credit all divisible profits of accounting year Refusal of registration Legality Indian Income tax Act, 1922, S. 26-A.

Registration -Registration-More than one coparcener representing Hindu undivided family in partnership-Whether affects validity of firm-Agreement for sharing profits of partner-Firm whether entitled to registration-Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, S. 26-A:

Firm-Registration-Smaller firm shown as partner of larger firm-Major members of smaller firm signing deed of partnership

Recitals in deed indicating shares of partners in smaller firm and the fact that minors were admitted to benefits of partnership of that firm-Larger firm whether entitled to registration-Indian Incometax Act, 1922, S. 26-A-Indian Income-tax Rules, 1922, r. 2

[Kylasa Sarabhaiah v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1962) 46 I T R 470 reversed.]

Partnership-Registration-Members of Hindu undivided family holding shares in firm on behalf of fancily-Partition subdividing shares held by members-Members continuing to hold shares in firm as before-Firm whether entitled to registration. Interpretation of statutes-Taxing statute-Effect of other laws Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, S. 26-A.

Partnership-Registration-Firm held to be genuine-One partner benamidar of another-Partnership whether entitled to registration-Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, S. 26-A.

Partnership-Registration-Scope of jurisdiction of Income tax Officer-Partners of manufacturing firms forming assessee firm, a separate partnership, in individual capacity-Validity Provision of capital by manufacturing firm on behalf of partner-Distribution of partners' share of profits between members of manufacturing firms Effect-Jurisdiction of High Court on reference-Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, Ss. 26-A & 66-Indian Income-tax Rules, 1922, rr. 2, 3, 4 & 6-B.

Firm-Registration-Application for registration-Provision prescribing different periods for different kinds of firms-Whether discriminatory-Indian Income-tax Rules, 1922, r. 2-Validity Constitution of India, Art. 14.

Firm-Registration-Gift of assets of business by Muslim-Gift effected by book entries-Whether valid-Subsequent formation of firm-Firm whether entitled to registration-Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, S. 26 (a).

Firm-Registration Partner being benamidar for third person, or karta of family, or entering into sub-partnership- Whether affects validity or reality of firm-Right of firm to registration Share infirm held by joint family-New partnership deed allotting separate shares to members-Whether effects division of status. Partition for reducing income-tax-Validity-Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, S. 26-A-Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, S. 27.

Registration Partnership-Registration-Application-Rejection of application on the ground that the partnership had no real existence Assessment of one applicant on the basis of return submitted by another-Validity-Indian Income-tax Act, 1922), S. 26-AConstitution of India, Art. 226.

Registration Partnership-Registration-Application proper on date of application-Subsequent deviations from terms of partnership in distribution of profits-Whether ground for refusal of registration Income-tax Act, 1922, S. 26-A-Income-tax Rules, 1922, r. 4.

Registration Firm-Registration-Business run by husband and wife in partnership-Husband dying leaving will directing executors to hold his share in trust equally for minor sons until each shall attain majority and elect to become partner-One son becoming major Partnership deed executed by wife and major son admitting minor sons to benefits of partnership-Whether could be registered Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, S. 26-A.