Regular Second Appeal No. 1175 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Regular Second Appeal No. 1175 of 2011 Date of Decision: 20.9.2011 Registered firm M/s Rajesh Kumar Sanjiv Kumar, Kaithal and Another ... Appellants Versus Excise & Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, Kaithal and Others ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate for the appellants. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The plaintiffs, having failed in two rounds of litigation, have preferred the present regular second appeal. Briefly stated, the plaintiffs had instituted a suit for permanent injunction praying that the respondents/defendants be restrained from effecting any recovery in pursuance of the notice and the summons issued by them. Plaintiff No.1 is a firm registered under the name & style of M/s Rajesh Kumar Sanjiv Kumar, Kaithal. It was stated that another registered firm, under the name & style of M/s Jiwan Rice & General mills, Kaithal, is engaged in the business of rice shelling and export of rice. A notice dated 7.5.2003 was served upon the plaintiff firm by defendants No.1 and 2 i.e. the Excise & Taxation Officer-cum- Regular Second Appeal No. 1175 of 2011 2 Assessing Authority, Kaithal and the Collector, Excise & Taxation Ist Grade, Kaithal, requesting them to discharge the securities furnished by it in their favour. Defendant No.1, exercising the powers of the Assessing Authority, District Kaithal, had passed the assessment order against the firm M/s Jiwan Rice & General Mills, Jind Road, Kaithal, for whom the appellant/plaintiff firm stood as a surety. It was pleaded in the suit that as per the provisions of Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”), it was incumbent upon the Assessing Authority to issue a notice to the firm, who had furnished security, before passing of any assessment order. In the civil suit, a prayer was made that the notice issued and served upon the appellant/plaintiff No.1 firm was illegal, null and void. A further prayer was made that the summons, issued for 14.5.2004, also suffered from the same infirmity as they were in violation of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The trial Court decided issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff-firm and held that the suit has been filed by the competent persons. However, the Court held that grievance of the appellant/plaintiff firm that the order of assessment was not served upon it is not made out. Furthermore, argument that detail was not given as to what amount was due against M/s Jiwan Rice & General Mills, Kaithal, is not tenable as it is not disputed that the plaintiff firm stood as a guarantor for M/s Jiwan Rice & General Mills in the Sales Tax Department. The trial Court rightly held that the liability of the plaintiff being a guarantor was co- extensive with the debtor and they cannot wriggle out from the terms & conditions of the surety bond. Thus, issues No.2 and 3 were decided Regular Second Appeal No. 1175 of 2011 3 against the appellant/plaintiffs. The findings of the trial Court have been affirmed by the lower Appellate Court. Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate, appearing for the appellants, has submitted that the assessment order, passed by defendant No.1 against M/s Jiwan Rice & General Mills, Kaithal, has been complied with and in pursuance thereof tax has been paid by the said firm. It is stated that since the appellant/plaintiff No.1 firm only stood as a surety, now upon payment of the tax due, no liability of the appellants/plaintiffs is due and therefore, notice and summons issued, by efflux of time, have been rendered redundant. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served by pursuing the present appeal. The findings returned by both the Courts below suffer from no infirmity especially when learned counsel for the appellants has failed to formulate any question of law, much less a substantial one, during the course of arguments. Furtherer, in view of the submission that the amount due has been paid by the firm, for which appellant stood surety, arguments raised in grounds of appeal only remain academic, as claim made in the suit has been rendered infructuous. Hence, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge September 20, 2011 “DK”