MOTITAL B. NAIK, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, claims to be a civil contractor, r/o Luxettipet of Adilabad District, approaches this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in demanding tax to the tune of Rs. 1,11,284. 00, stated to be the arrears of sales tax for the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95 in relation to Licence No. 4/ 92-97, dated 29-9-1992 issued in Form FL 24 Retail License for the sale of kinds of Indian Liquors, Foreign Liquors and Beer in the name of M/s. Sri Sai Wines, Luxettipet, Adilabad District, as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same. ( 2 ) BEFORE we proceed to decide the issue raised in the writ petition, it would be appropriate to note few facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the controversy with regard to the liability to pay tax by the petitioner to the Commercial Tax Department. ( 3 ) UNDER Form FL 24 Retail Licence for the sale of all kinds of Indian Liquors, Foreign Liquors and Beer was issued by the Excise Superintendent, Adilabad District, on payment of fee of Rs. 28,750. 00 under Licence No. 4/92-97 in the name of M/s. Sri Sai Wines, Luxettipet, being the licensee. The licence, so applied, is in the name of M/s. Sri Sai Wines. In the Licence Form, the person who obtained the licence is shown as V. Suresh, s/o. Ramakoteswar r/o. Luxettipet. In the licence, the premises bearing No. 5-78 and its boundaries are also shown. The licence was issued on 29-9-1992 for a period of five years i. e. , till the end of the Excise year 1997. ( 4 ) IT appears, according to the material placed before us, the said licensee fell in arrears of sales tax under A. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 for the assessment year 1993-94 to the tune of Rs. 20,554. 00 and for the assessment year 1994-95 to the tune of Rs. 90,730. 00 totaling to Rs. 1,11,284. 00. ( 5 ) IN order to recover the arrears of tax, the 3rd respondent in the writ petition, issued a notice in Rc. 20,554. 00 and for the assessment year 1994-95 to the tune of Rs. 90,730. 00 totaling to Rs. 1,11,284. 00. ( 5 ) IN order to recover the arrears of tax, the 3rd respondent in the writ petition, issued a notice in Rc. GF No. 2014/93-94 and 1994-95, dated 29-6-2001 indicating that the dealers have failed to pay the tax due even after receipt of several notices after completion of the final assessment and raising the final demand by issuing B3 Notice. This notice also indicates that possible efforts have been made to collect the above sales tax arrears, but not amount has been paid, and in the above circumstances, the notice was issued to M/s. Sri Sai Wines and addressed to Sri B. Sudhakar, who is the petitioner in this writ petition, requiring him to pay the said tax within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice. The notice further indicates that if the amount is not paid within the time indicated, the matter will be reported to the higher authorities to take action under Sections 48 and 49 of the A. P. Revenue Recovery Act by invoking the powers of arrest for wilful or fraudulent non-payment of arrears and to undergo imprisonment. The notice further cautions that no further time will be granted under any circumstances. ( 6 ) THE petitioner promptly reacted to the said notice by sending a reply notice on 2-8-2001 indicating that he has no connection whatsoever with the said Sri Sai Wines of Luxettipet and has never fell in arrears of payment of tax to the Sales Tax Department, nonetheless, any connection with the wines business relating to M/s. Sri Sai Wines. The petitioner has also indicated in the reply notice that if any steps, on wrong advice, are taken against the petitioner, he would approach the Court of law for redressal. ( 7 ) THE petitioner complaints that the notice issued by the 3rd respondent dated 29-6-2001 demanding an amount of Rs. 1,11,284. 00 towards arrears of sales tax relating to M/s. Sri Sai Wines on the ground that he is the partner of the said firm, is baseless, inasmuch as the petitioner has no connection with the said Sri Sai Wines nor he is due to the Government any amount. 1,11,284. 00 towards arrears of sales tax relating to M/s. Sri Sai Wines on the ground that he is the partner of the said firm, is baseless, inasmuch as the petitioner has no connection with the said Sri Sai Wines nor he is due to the Government any amount. He further states that a reply notice was also given to the department on 2-8-2001 explaining his position and indicating that he has no nexus with the firm Sri Sai Wines for which no reply is issued to the petitioner. In fact the petitioner has further clarified in the petitioner filed that he belongs to a different social group and not a partner of Sri Sai Wines. According to his knowledge, the licence was obtained by one Sri V. Suresh and one Jayaprakash was the guarantor for the APGST licence. The petitioner states that he is surprised as to how the 3rd respondent could demand amount from him when the licensee is M/s Sri Sai Wines, the proprietor being N. Suresh S/o Ramakoteswar of Luxettipet. The petitioner also states that without making any enquiry, the 3rd respondent issued the impugned notice demanding certain sums as if he is due to the department. He pleaded, in the circumstances, he invoked the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking appropriate direction as indicated above. ( 8 ) THE writ petition fell for consideration before a learned Division Bench of this Court on 17-8-2001 and in WPMP No. 23008 of 2001 the learned Division Bench granted interim suspension of the notice. The matter, thereafter, fell before another learned Division Bench for consideration and the learned Division Bench granted time to the Special Government Pleader for Taxes, for filing counter on behalf of the respondents and placing the entire record enabling this Court to pass appropriate orders. Thus the matter has fallen for consideration today. The Government Pleader as required, has placed relevant papers for our scrutiny. ( 9 ) A counter is filed on behalf of the respondents, which is sworn in by Sri N. Chandra Mouli, Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Luxettipet, who is the 3rd respondent in the writ petition. In para 2 of the counter-affidavit, the deponent stated that the notice was issued on 29-6-2001 demanding a tax to the tune of Rs. 1,11,284. 00 towards arrears of sales tax relating to Sri Sai Wines, Luxettipet. In para 2 of the counter-affidavit, the deponent stated that the notice was issued on 29-6-2001 demanding a tax to the tune of Rs. 1,11,284. 00 towards arrears of sales tax relating to Sri Sai Wines, Luxettipet. In para 4 of the counter-affidavit, the deponent narrated that one V. Suresh obtained RC under A. P. General Sales Tax Act for doing business in IMFL in the name and style as M/s. Sri Sai Wines and the said Sri Sai Wines fell in arrears in payment of sales tax for the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95 and details have also been stated. At page 2 of the counter- affidavit, the deponent also submitted that when he approached Sri V. Suresh, for payment of tax, the said Suresh informed that M/s. Sri Sai Wines, in fact, is a partnership firm and it floated as a result of a secret agreement, dated 2-1-1991, between the partners and indicated that the names of the following persons who are the partners of the above firm and the respective shares held by those persons, viz. , ( 10 ) IT is also indicated that from and out of the arrears, a sum of Rs. 18,622. 00 was paid, leaving a balance of Rs. 1,11,284. 00 and since the petitioner is the first partner, holding the highest share of 16%, a notice was issued to him to pay the entire balance of arrears of tax. It is also stated that an additional sum of Rs. 22,920. 00 was paid by M/s. Sri Sai Wines and thus the net balance due is Rs. 80,730. 00 relating to the assessment year 1994-95. ( 11 ) IN para 3 of the counter, it is stated that as a result of a secret understanding among the partners, a firm by name M/s. Sri Sai Wines was floated for doing business in liquor and this secret understanding was reduced into writing by way of an agreement dated 2-1-1991 among the above partners. It is also stated that when all the partners of the firm were contacted, they confirmed their involvement in the business in addition to the petitioner s active involvement in the firm. It is also stated that when all the partners of the firm were contacted, they confirmed their involvement in the business in addition to the petitioner s active involvement in the firm. According to the respondents, as the liability of a partner is unlimited, joint and several, the petitioner being the first partner having the highest shares, a notice was issued to him on 29-6-2001 demanding to pay the arrears of tax. The 3rd respondent has further clarified that a reply to the notice got issued by the petitioner, has been sent to him under registered post with acknowledgment due. ( 12 ) IN the light of this counter, we desired to verify the record relating to the arrears of tax from M/s. Sri Sai Wines. The learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes has placed few papers kept in a brown colour paper folder informing the Court that these papers are the records. This Court collected the same to verify as to whether any enquiry has been made by the 3rd respondent to connect the petitioner with M/s. Sri Sai Wines or whether the 3rd respondent obtained any registered document which indicate that the firm in question is a registered firm and that the petitioner is one of the partners of the said firm. We have verified the record placed by the Government Pleader and those papers are given page Nos. 1 to 40. We have also marked the page numbers with blue colour marking pencil and marked three papers, on which the department solely placed reliance to substantiate its contention, as Exs. C1 to C3. Ex. C1 is at page No. 15, Ex. C2 is at page No. 17 and Ex. C3 is at page No. 5 of the folder containing the papers with page Nos. 1 to 40. ( 13 ) IN the counter-affidavit the 3rd respondent has stated that by virtue of a secret understanding among the partners, the firm Sri Sai Wines was floated for doing business in liquor and the shares relating to each partner were also indicated in the said document. Page No. 17, which we marked as Ex. C2, is a Xerox copy of some paper describing it as an agreement dated 2-1-1991. This Xerox copy of the paper is in handwriting. It is difficult to accept this document to be a partnership deed. Page No. 17, which we marked as Ex. C2, is a Xerox copy of some paper describing it as an agreement dated 2-1-1991. This Xerox copy of the paper is in handwriting. It is difficult to accept this document to be a partnership deed. In the absence of any registered partnership deed placed before us, we cannot take judicial notice of such a paper and accept the version of the department about the genuineness of the partnership. The original of Ex. C2 is not placed before the Court to believe the version of the department that M/s. Sri Sai Wines is a partnership firm and several persons are the partners of the said firm including the writ petitioner and he had 16% of shares in the said firm. ( 14 ) ANOTHER important document at page No. 15 of the record filed by the learned Government Pleader, which has been marked by us as Ex. C1, is a letter in the handwriting of one V. Ramakoteshwar. The date of the said letter is shown as August, 2001. The letter is a Telugu manuscript, addressed to the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, who is the 3rd respondent. From the Form FL 24 Retail Licence, which was issued by the department in the name of one Sri V. Suresh, we could find that the said Sri V. Suresh is the son of one Ramakoleshwar and a photo of Sri V. Suresh is also affixed on the Form FL 24 Retail Licence. We presume, this letter, which is marked as Ex. Cl is in the handwriting of by Sri Ramakoteshwar, father of Sri V. Suresh, who is described as proprietor of M/s. Sri Sai Wines, Luxettipet, by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer. This letter also indicates that on 2-1-1991 an agreement was entered into between the partners and few of them withdrew from the partnership firm and from 1993-94 the writ petitioner and few others joined the partnership firm and they are doing business of selling liquor. ( 15 ) FROM the record placed before us, another letter written to the 3rd respondent by Sri V. Ramakoteshwar, is also found by us at page No. 5 of the file and we have marked this letter at page No. 5 as Ex. C3. ( 15 ) FROM the record placed before us, another letter written to the 3rd respondent by Sri V. Ramakoteshwar, is also found by us at page No. 5 of the file and we have marked this letter at page No. 5 as Ex. C3. This letter/statement said to have been given to the 3rd respondent by the proprietor of M/s. Sri Sai Wines indicates that on 25-10-2000 an amount of Rs. 10,000. 00 was paid to the department and the remaining tax relating to his share would be paid by 30-10-2000. It is also indicated in Ex. C3 that the writ petitioner B. Sudhakar, contractor, Luxettipet, is due to pay the 50% of the liability and this Ramakoteshwar requested the 3rd respondent to recover 50% of the tax from the petitioner. ( 16 ) THE sole contention raised on behalf of the respondents to fasten the liability on the petitioner is based on the version that M/s. Sri Sai Wines is a partnership firm and was floated by several persons and there was an understanding between them and that the petitioner being one of the partners, having 16% of shares, is liable to pay the arrears of tax. The other ground urged in the counter is that when all other partners of the firm Sri Sai Wines were contacted, they confirmed their involvement including the active involvement of the petitioner in the partnership firm and as the liability of a partner is unlimited, joint and several, the department has issued a notice on 29-6-2001 to the petitioner, who is having 16% of shares in the firm, seeking to recover all the entire dues from Sri Sai Wines. ( 17 ) WE have heard Sri V. Ramamohan Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes appearing on behalf of the respondents elaborately and have perused the record placed before us by the leaned Special Government Pleader, which is produced at our instance. As seen from Page No. 3 of the record placed by the Special Government Pleader, which is Form No. 1 distraint order, Sri Vijjala Suresh, S/o. Ramakoteshwar, r/o Luxettipet is described as the proprietor of M/s. Sri Sai Wines, Luxettipet. Ex. As seen from Page No. 3 of the record placed by the Special Government Pleader, which is Form No. 1 distraint order, Sri Vijjala Suresh, S/o. Ramakoteshwar, r/o Luxettipet is described as the proprietor of M/s. Sri Sai Wines, Luxettipet. Ex. C3 is the statement said to have been made by Sri V. Ramakoteshwar in the presence of one Sri Jaya Prakash before the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer/ 3rd respondent, in which it is stated by Sri Ramakoteshwar that the petitioner herein is also liable to pay 50% of the liability. Page No. 9 of the record is the reply notice given by the petitioner to the impugned notice; issued by the 3rd respondent seeking recovery of arrears. In the said notice, the petitioner has denied the liability and has disowned about his association with Sri Sai Wines. Page No. 15 of the record is a letter, which is marked as Ex. C1, addressed by Sri Ramakoteshwar, who is the father of Vijjala Suresh, in which it is indicated that there is a secret understanding between the partners and the petitioner became a partner of the firm in the year 1994. Another document at Page No. 17, which is placed before us and marked by this Court as Ex. C2, is a Xerox copy of an agreement, which is said to have been entered into between the partners, is dated 2-1-1991, indicates the description of the partners of the firm. On the basis of this material, the 3rd respondent has proceeded to fasten the liability relating to M/s. Sri Sai Wines for the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95 on the petitioner. ( 18 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, no where it is stated mat an enquiry has been made by the department giving an opportunity to the petitioner to set forth his case and in that enquiry it was established that the petitioner is a partner of M/s. Sri Sai Wines. There is no record placed before us probablising the association of the petitioner with M/s. Sri Sai Wines, except the documents marked as Ex. Cl to C3, which we have discussed elaborately in the foregoing paras. There is no record placed before us probablising the association of the petitioner with M/s. Sri Sai Wines, except the documents marked as Ex. Cl to C3, which we have discussed elaborately in the foregoing paras. From these documents it is difficult for us to assume that the petitioner is associated with M/s. Sri Sai Wines and is also liable under the terms of the partnership, to pay the amounts due to the Government by M/s. Sri Sai Wines. Form FL 24 Retail Licence issued by the department is out and out in the name of M/s. Sri Sai Wines of Luxettipet and Sri V. Surech S/o. Ramakoteshwar is shown as proprietor of the firm, who obtained Licence No. 4/92-97, dated 29-9-1992 from the Excise Superintendent, Adilabad District for doing business in selling wines on payment of Rs. 28,750. 00 towards licence fee. In the distraint order, which is at page No. 3 of the material record filed by the Special Government Pleader, issued on 25-10-2000 by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer in Form No. 1, one Vijjela Suresh S/o. Ramakoteshwar, Luxettipet is shown as the proprietor of M/s. Sri Sai Wines. On a careful scrutiny of the record placed by the learned Special Government Pleader and in the light of the counter filed by the 3rd respondent, we have no hesitation to say that the action of the 3rd respondent fastening the liability on the petitioner by issuing the impugned notice requiring him to pay an amount of Rs. 1,11,284. 00 towards arrears, and indicating further action proposed against the petitioner, is an atrocious act of the 3rd respondent, which is not in accordance with the procedures and established norms. ( 19 ) NO doubt the department is entitled to recover arrears from M/s. Sri Sai Wines, which is a licensee and from V. Suresh, being its proprietor. But the efforts of the department to recover the arrears from the partner only on the basis of a letter addressed by the father of V. Suresh to the third respondent would tantamount to hunting a goose in a wild forest. We are in a system governed by rule of law. It is to be noted that rule of law takes into its fold, fair play in action, and none can be condemned without affording a reasonable opportunity. We are in a system governed by rule of law. It is to be noted that rule of law takes into its fold, fair play in action, and none can be condemned without affording a reasonable opportunity. From the narration of the facts, we have no hesitation to hold that the 3rd respondent has not acted fairly while determining the liability against the petitioner. We would, rather inclined to say that the 3rd respondent has not shown any respect to the rule of law. The 3rd respondent has thrown all established norms to winds and has followed his own method and assumed and presumed various things, which are not borne out of records. If we are to accept the version of the 3rd respondent that some xyz. , made a statement implicating the petitioner in connection with the firm, in our view it would not be sufficient to hold that the petitioner s involvement is proved to bind him to pay the tax liability arising out of the licence obtained by M/s. Sri Sai Wines, to which one V. Suresh is a proprietor. ( 20 ) FOR all these reasons, we hold that the notice issued by the 3rd respondent fastening the liability on the petitioner to pay arrears of tax, said to be due from M/s. Sri Sai Wines for the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95 is liable to be quashed and we accordingly quash the same. Consequently, the writ petition allowed. ( 21 ) IN normal circumstances, we would have allowed the writ petition without imposing any costs. However, the manner in which the 3rd respondent has initiated the proceedings and the demand made against the petitioner for recovery of arrears without giving any opportunity to the petitioner or without there being any documentary evidence satisfying himself, which has led the petitioner to approach this Court engaging an advocate in this Court resulting in expenditure, apart from causing mental agony to him, would warrant imposing costs on the third respondent. For all these reasons, we impose exemplary costs of Rs. 15,000. 00on the 3rd respondent, which shall be recovered from him. We direct this amount of Rs. 15,000. 00 shall be recovered from the salary of the 3rd respondent in three equal monthly installments, i. e. , Rs. 5,000. For all these reasons, we impose exemplary costs of Rs. 15,000. 00on the 3rd respondent, which shall be recovered from him. We direct this amount of Rs. 15,000. 00 shall be recovered from the salary of the 3rd respondent in three equal monthly installments, i. e. , Rs. 5,000. 00for each month from the monthly salary of February, March and April, 2002 payable in the months of March, April and May, 2002 respectively and the same shall be paid to the petitioner by way of demand drafts. The Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Government of A. P. shall issue necessary instructions to all concerned to effect the deduction from the salary of the 3rd respondent as indicated above and report compliance of the order to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. The Registry shall issue a copy of this order to the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh and also Principal Secretary, Revenue, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad.