9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (10) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed from them is not payable inasmuch as the assessments have been made against a dissolved partnership firm which is not permitted by law and the sales tax, if any, payable on the turnover of the relevant period was the responsibility of one Manohar Lal who took over all the assets and liabilities of the partnership firm on its dissolution of which the two petitioners and Manohar Lal were partners till March 10, 1957. The partnership firm used to carry on work under the name and style of M/s. Juginder Pal Ranjit Singh and comprised of three partners. This firm was a registered dealer within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi. The firm was dissolved by a deed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er it could be made in the manner that the assessment has been finalised? It is not in dispute that the partnership firm was a registered dealer. It is not the respondents' case that the firm fell within the ambit of section 8 of the Act and so obviously the firm was a dealer to which section 10 of the Act was applicable. Since the firm was a dealer within the meaning of sub-section (2) of section 10 of the Act, if there was a change in the constitution of the firm or the business of the firm was sold or otherwise disposed of, section 16 of the Act was attracted. Under this provision the dealer was bound to inform the prescribed authority about the change in its constitution and the disposal of its business. It is admitted that this inform ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ules framed thereunder the benefit of the same must go to the citizen. It is settled law that a partnership firm ceases to be liable to assessment by the mere fact of its dissolution where the proceedings for assessment are initiated after the dissolution. (See in this connection the decision of the Supreme Court in The State of Punjab v. M/s. Jullundur Vegetables Syndicate[1966] 17 S.T.C. 326 (S.C.); A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1295. The petitioners' firm in the present case stood dissolved before the initiation of the assessment proceedings. Intimation of this dissolution was admittedly received by the respondents on April 15, 1957, and the rules do not require anything further to be done by the taxpayer. It is urged by Mr. B.N. Kirpal, the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
