9911796707
TMI Blog1955 (1) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urnover, as provided by rule 39(1) of the rules framed under the Act. Amarnath subsequently left the firm on the 16th July, 1950, and the other two partners, namely, Kedar Nath and the petitioner then became owners of this firm in the proportion of half and half. The firm was subsequently assessed to sales tax by an order dated the 19th July, 1952. The reconstituted firm was known as Bansgopal Amarnath and this firm was also dissolved on the 18th April, 1952. The assess- ment was, however, made on this firm for the year 1951-52 on the 17th March, 1953. The taxes were not paid and the papers were sent to the Collector for realising the amounts assessed by both the orders, mentioned above, as arrears of land revenue. The petitioner filed an a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sidered together. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred me to the definition of the word "dealer", as defined, in section 2(c) of the Act. In this sub-section "dealer" has been defined as meaning any person or association of persons carrying on the business of buying or selling and supplying goods in the United Provinces, and it includes any firm or Hindu joint family and any society, club or association, which sells or supplies goods to its members; but it does not include any department of the State Government or the Indian Government. The argument of the learned counsel is that the word "dealer" includes a firm also and in the present case, the firms were assessed to tax and not the individual partners and the money, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fference between a company, registered under the Companies Act, and a firm popularly so called. The essential difference is that a company is a body quite distinct from the shareholders, and if has an individuality of its own. But the case of a firm is different and a firm has no individual existence of its own as distinguished from the partners of the firm. Under the scheme of the U.P. Sales Tax Act it does not appear that a firm is to be dealt with differently from the partners of the firm. There is no rule about the registration of the firm excepting the one which I have quoted above, though, for purposes of convenience, the word "dealer" has been defined as to include a firm, or an association of persons and even a joint Hindu family. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the tax for the subsequent period. The section nowhere suggests that a firm and the partners are distinct entities, and if a firm has been assessed, the partners cannot be deemed to have been assessed or the partners would not be liable to pay the tax assessed on the firm. Reference in this connection was made to the definitions of the words "assessee", "person", "firm" and "partner", as given in the Indian Income-tax Act, and a reference was then made to section 24B of that Act. his section was added by the Central Act No. XVIII of 1933, and sub-section (1) says that where a person dies, his executor, administrator or other legal representative shall be liable to pay, out of the estate of the deceased person to the extent to which the es ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cular firm name. If the argument of the learned counsel is accepted, it would lead to the result that the moment the firm has ceased to exist, which may be by a voluntary act of the partners, there can be no assess- ment after that date, nor can the tax be realised from any of the partners. The argument further leads to the conclusion that even if a firm is continuing to act, the tax can be recovered only from the pro- perty of the firm and not from its partners, because it has been urged that the firm is quite distinct from the partners. Reference was then made to section 44 of the Indian Income-tax Act, which provides that where any business, profession or vocation carried on by a firm or association of persons has been discontinued, or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 53; A.I.R. 1951 Mad. 886. assessment, that firm was treated as one entity and that, in default of payment pursuant to the notice, the firm was liable to be prosecuted. In this case notice demanding the payment of arrears of tax from a firm was served upon a partner of the firm and the amount not having been paid in time the other partner, who was not served with a notice, was prosecuted for non-payment of the tax. The learned judge held that this prosecution was illegal. On a reading of the relevant sections of the Madras Act, the opinion of the learned Judge was that the only person that could be prosecuted was the assessee and the assessee was the firm and not all the partners of it. I am not able to interpret the wordings of the U.P. Sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
