THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No. 21624 of 2008. ORDER: (Per Goda Raghuram, J). The demand notice dt. 7.2.2010 issued to M/s Ashoka Par Boiled Modern Rice Mill, Suryapet setting out a demand of Rs. 10,37,483/- as arrears under the A.P.G.S.T. Act, 1957, CST Act, 1956 and RDC Act is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner is an unregistered partnership firm asserting to be represented by its Managing Partner K.Srinivas Reddy. The petitioner purchased the rice mill earlier functioning under the name and style of Ashoka Par Boiled Modern Rice Mill, Suryapet in 1998 and is running it thereafter in the name of the petitioner. On 17.10.2007, the 1st respondent representing the Revenue issued a notice to M/s Ashoka Par Boiled Modern Rice Mill to pay the tax arrears and thereafter issued the present impugned notice. It is the complaint of the petitioner that Revenue officials are regularly visiting his business premises to recover the dues. 1st respondent filed a counter stating that M/s Ashoka Par Boiled Modern Rice Mill is an assessee on the rolls of the CTO, Suryapet and was conducting business in the rice milling and sale of rice and other by- products. During the years 1990-91 to 1998-99, the firm fell in arrears of the tax as enumerated in the impugned demand notice. Though M/s Ashoka Par Boiled Modern Rice Mill, an unregistered firm continued, there was change in the partners from time to time and the liabilities and assets of the earlier firm were transferred by the outgoing partners to the continuing partners after entering into separate deeds of partnership and the arrears of tax accrued against the firm also stood transferred to the continuing and existing partners. Sri.K.Srinivas Reddy, the deponent of the writ petition is a partner in both the earlier unregistered firm M/s Ashoka Par Boiled Modern Rice Mill as well as the petitioner firm. As the properties of M/s Ashoka Par Boiled Modern Rice Mill are in the custody and possession of the petitioner firm and as the partners of the firm are also jointly and severally liable for discharge of the liabilities in view of the provisions of Section 16-C and 24(1) of the A.P.G.S.T.Act, 1957 and AP VAT Act, 2005 respectively, the impugned demand notice was issued. It is further stated by the 1st respondent that the notice of demand was issued to Ashoka Par Boiled Modern Rice Mill and not to the petitioner firm and that the collection of arrears will be enforced against the defaulting firm and not the petitioner firm and therefore the petitioner has no locus standi. In any event, it is contended that as the partners are jointly and severally liable particularly since the firm is an unregistered firm, there is no infirmity in the notice of demand warranting interdiction in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the facts and circumstances stated above, the petitioner has not made out any case for interference. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ______________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J 11.10.2011. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No. 21624 of 2008. ORDER: (Per Goda Raghuram, J). Dt. 11.10.2011.