2000 (1) TMI 954 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Liability of a partner who claimed retirement from a partnership under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Analysis:
The judgment of the Kerala High Court dealt with revision applications under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, concerning the liability of a partner who claimed retirement from a partnership for the assessment year 1986-87. The Tribunal adjudicated appeals related to the Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, focusing on the petitioner's retirement from the partnership. The State filed appeals against the Deputy Commissioner's decision, contending that the petitioner had not properly retired from the partnership.

The factual dispute centered on the petitioner's claim of retirement based on a deed of release and re-constitution of partnership executed during the alleged retirement. The Revenue argued that proper intimation as per the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules was necessary, which the petitioner failed to provide. The controversy arose regarding whether the required intimation was actually given, with the petitioner presenting documents to support his claim while the Revenue maintained that no such intimation was provided.

The statutory provisions under Section 21 of the Act and Rule 5(8)(b) of the Rules were crucial in determining the partner's liability upon retirement. The Court emphasized that a partner remains liable for unpaid amounts up to the retirement date, notwithstanding any contract terms. Rule 5(8)(b) mandated partners to give intimation in a specific form within a set timeframe to the registering authority. The Court highlighted the importance of following statutory procedures for retirement declarations to ensure proper liability determination.

The Court concluded that the records showed no intimation was given, and the petitioner failed to prove otherwise. Citing legal precedents, the Court reiterated that statutory acts must be performed as prescribed, and deviations are impermissible. Denying the revision applications, the Court emphasized strict adherence to statutory requirements and dismissed the plea for Supreme Court appeal, deeming it unfit. The applications were thus dismissed, upholding the decision on the partner's liability upon retirement.