9911796707
TMI Blog1960 (8) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he issued a notice to the petitioners' firm. The first hearing before the Sales Tax Officer was on 2nd February, 1956. The petitioners did not appear before him. The case was then adjourned 13 times, but the petitioners did not appear. The Sales Tax Officer then estimated the turnover of the petitioners and made an order for assessment assessing the firm to tax of about Rs. 1,56,000. This order was made on 3rd January, 1957. The petitioners appealed against this order to the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax. He confirmed the order of the petitioners' assessment and dismissed the appeal. The petitioners then approached the Sales Tax Tribunal, but the Tribunal also dismissed their appeal. Thereafter the petitioners filed the present applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rship is dissolved every person who was a partner shall send a report of the dissolution to the assessing authority within 30 days of such dissolution. It was held that in the absence of the compliance with rule 37 and in the absence of proper proof of the alleged dissolution prior to the date of assessment, the assessee-firm could not complain that the order of assessment was invalid because it was made after the dissolution of the assessee-firm. The decision of the Allahabad High Court was also not followed by the Madras High Court in Ponnuswami Gramani v. Collector of Chingleput District[1960] 11 S.T.C. 80. It was held in that case that although the Madras General Sales Tax Act and the rules framed thereunder make no separate provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt of the dissolution to the licensing, registering and assessing authority within thirty days of such dissolution. It is admitted that the petitioners had not sent any intimation about the dissolution of the firm to the Sales Tax Officer. At the time when the firm is said to have been dissolved, the assessment proceedings against the firm were going on before the Sales Tax Officer. He did not receive any intimation from the petitioners about the dissolution of the firm. He cannot, therefore, be said to have acted wrongly or without jurisdiction in continuing the assessment proceedings and passing final orders thereon. In our opinion, therefore, there is no force in the argument, which has been advanced by Mr. Mehta, that the petitioners' f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
