1990 (11) TMI 384 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of assessment on a dissolved partnership firm.
2. Service of notice on partners of a dissolved firm.
3. Challenge to the vires of section 19A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act.
4. Challenge to the vires of rule 52(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules.
5. Justification for the challenge to the vires of the provisions.

Issue 1: Validity of assessment on a dissolved partnership firm

The appellants, former partners of a dissolved partnership firm, contested the assessment and penalty imposed by the assessing officer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The Supreme Court's ruling in State of Punjab v. Jullundur Vegetables Syndicate prompted the enactment of section 19A, allowing assessments on dissolved firms. Section 19A mandates joint and several liability for taxes on partners at the time of dissolution. The Tribunal granted partial relief, leading the appellants to file a writ petition challenging the assessment's validity post-dissolution. The High Court affirmed the statutory provision's validity, upholding the assessment on the dissolved firm and partners' liability.

Issue 2: Service of notice on partners of a dissolved firm

The assessing officer served notice on one partner only, omitting others, despite all partners being involved during the firm's dissolution. Rule 52(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules permits service on any partner pre-dissolution. The High Court deemed service on one partner as valid, binding all partners post-dissolution, as they were partners at the firm's dissolution. The challenge against the service of notice was rejected, emphasizing the rule's compliance with the law.

Issue 3: Challenge to the vires of section 19A

The appellants challenged the constitutionality of section 19A, arguing it authorized assessments on non-existent entities. However, the challenge lacked substantial grounds and failed to provide specific reasons for the provision's invalidity. The High Court upheld the presumption of constitutionality, finding no basis to doubt section 19A's validity. The challenge against section 19A was deemed misconceived and subsequently rejected.

Issue 4: Challenge to the vires of rule 52(2)

The appellants also contested the constitutionality of rule 52(2), alleging it denied equal protection under the law by allowing service on one partner post-dissolution. However, the challenge lacked substantial grounds and justification, failing to specify any legal basis for questioning the rule's validity. The High Court dismissed the challenge to the vires of rule 52(2, citing the absence of legitimate grounds and the appellants' attempt to prolong litigation without valid justification.

Issue 5: Justification for the challenge to the vires of the provisions

The High Court scrutinized the writ petition and found the challenges to the vires of section 19A and rule 52(2) lacked legal foundation and appeared to be raised without proper justification. The challenges were viewed as attempts to prolong litigation after unsuccessful appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal. The High Court rejected the unfounded challenges, emphasizing the absence of valid grounds and the appellants' apparent intent to delay the legal process. Consequently, the writ appeal was dismissed, with interim orders vacated and no costs awarded.

---