9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (12) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the change in constitution was intimated to the sales tax department. As a result of the dissolution, the registration certificate was to go to Shri Abdul Ghani, the other partner, who was authorised to transfer it to the name of M/s. S.A. Ghani. A joint statement was made before the Sales Tax Officer on 8th October, 1952, stating that the petitioner would be jointly and severally responsible for payment of tax only up to 23rd August, 1952, and after that Shri Abdul Ghani would be responsible. On 30th September, 1953, an assessment order for the year 1952-53 was framed raising an additional demand for Rs. 38,464.56. This demand was framed after notice to Shri Abdul Ghani. The amount of tax was not paid, so process of recovery of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he was a partner along with Shri Abdul Ghani. A statement had been made by the petitioner that he would be jointly and severally liable for this period. However, the claim of the petitioner was that the liability was completely transferred to Shri Abdul Ghani and he was not liable even for the joint period. The relevant provision of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as applicable to Delhi, at the relevant time is as follows: "17. Transfer of business.-Where the ownership of the business of a registered dealer is entirely transferred and the transferee carries on such business either in its old name or in some other name, the transferee shall for all the purposes of this Act (except for liabilities under this Act already disch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olution. In fact it was held by the Supreme Court in that case that the partnership ceased to be a legal entity for the purposes of the Sales Tax Act and cannot be assessed. In any case, this Court granted a writ restraining the recovery of the tax from the erstwhile partners. Another judgment referred to is Jagdish Kaur v. Sales Tax Officer, XXIV K-Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi[1974] 33 S.T.C. 522., wherein it was held that a widow who was carrying on business was liable for sales tax due as she was a transferee within the meaning of section 17 of the Act. It was there held that the transferee is only liable to pay the arrears of sales tax if the previous owner has not already paid the tax. This is so provided in section 17. The resul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t case, the question is somewhat academic because the dealer himself stated before the Sales Tax Officer that he would be jointly liable for the period up to 23rd August, 1952, which is the only period for which the tax amounting to Rs. 6,164.25 has been claimed. The remaining demand for the whole year is not being claimed from the present petitioner, Shri Suraj Mal. The answer to the first question has, therefore, to be in the negative: it is in the negative because the liability of the transferor has not ceased by reason of his own statement. As far as the second question is concerned, there is no doubt that notices were issued to S.A. Ghani only which is in accord with section 17. However, this does not affect the liability of the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
