9911796707
TMI Blog1967 (1) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing under the name and style of Messrs. Modern Shoe Mart at Haidar Building, Jodhpur. The firm carried on business in the sale of shoes. It consisted of two partners, namely, late Shri Mahaveer Singh Dadha and Mst. Shanti Devi Kackar. According to the petitioner the firm continued its business till 23rd October, 1956, and therafter the proprietorship of the firm was transferred to one of the partners, namely, Mst. Shanti Devi Kackar. The Sales Tax Officer, Jodhpur, according to the petitioners, issued notices to the firm as also to both the partners thereof in respect of the assessment year 1956-57. It may be mentioned that the accounting period corresponding to this assessment year was 15th November, 1955, to 23rd October, 1956. The grieva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lved in the year 1956. We ought to mention that this assessment order was passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Jodhpur, on 6th March, 1961. The writ petition has been opposed by the respondents. It is contended on their behalf that we should not entertain this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution as the petitioners had not availed of the statutory remedy of an appeal and by not depositing the amount of tax they had themselves failed to avail of it. It was next contended that as by the Rajasthan Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act (No. 13 of 1964), section 9 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred as the "Act"), under which the assessment was made had been amended with retrospective effect, the Sales Tax Offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a proceeding started after the dissolution. It was pointed out that in either case, unless there was an express provision, no assessment could be made on a firm which had lost its character as an assessable entity. In Smt. Shanti Bai's case(1) referred to above, it was pointed out that if the firm stood dissolved, then the case could not have but been dealt with under section 9(3)(b) of the Act as amended by the Rajasthan Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1964. In Smt. Shanti Bai's case(1), as there was a controversy about the dissolution of that firm, the case was sent back to the Sales Tax Officer for a determination of the question and then to proceed further according to law. But, in the present case, it is not disputed that the firm Mes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firm. That being so, we are satisfied that the assessment order is bad. Lastly, we may make a mention of Shri Shrimal's submission about the availability of an alternative remedy of an appeal to the petitioners. Now, normally the existence of an alternative remedy and a particular litigant not availing of it is a matter that weighs with us, but in a case where there is a total lack of jurisdiction in the Tribunal, then the mere existence of an alternative remedy under the statute by itself is no ground for not granting relief to the petitioners. Therefore, we do not find any force in this plea either. The result is that we allow the writ petition with costs, set aside the assessment order (exhibit C on the record) and restrain the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
