9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (5) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artner of a partnership firm called "the Mysore Steel Industries", Chamarajpet, Bangalore-18, against which assessments have been made by the CTO on 16th February, 1978 and 15th March, 1978, for the two years in question. He claims that the firm was dissolved on 1st April, 1974, and the assessments made thereafter under section 12-A of the Act without issue of notices on all the ex-partners of the firm, are illegal and in any event, cannot be enforced against the petitioner. 3.. In support of his contention Sri Srinivasan strongly relies on a Division Bench ruling of this Court in S.M. Suligavi v. Judicial Magistrate, I Class reported in [1980] 46 STC 335; [1980] 2 Kar LJ 141. 4.. Sri S. Rajendra Babu, learned Government Advocate, refuti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s case [1985] 58 STC 213 (Kar); ILR (1985) 1 Kar 1285 is reproduced below: "Where any Hindu undivided family, firm or other association of persons is partitioned, dissolved or discontinued, notice, summons or orders issued under the Act or these Rules, may be served on any member of the Hindu undivided family or any person who was a partner (not being a minor) or member of the association, as the case may be, immediately before such partition, dissolution or discontinuance." 5.. It may be noticed that the decision of the Supreme Court in Raja Reddy Mallaram [1964] 51 ITR 285 (SC) was rendered under section 44 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in the case of an Association of Persons (AOP) which had discontinued its business. The Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contention is to be accepted and the principle in Suligavi's case [1980] 46 STC 335 (Kar); (1980) 2 Kar LJ 141 is applied to a case of assessment also, no assessment under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act can be done on a dissolved firm without issue of notices on all the erstwhile partners of a dissolved firm. But, according to this Court's view in P.K. Ahmed's case [1985] 58 STC 213; ILR (1985) 1 Kar 1285, no such individual notice on all the ex-partners, is contemplated in view of the provisions of rule 43(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules. 8.. I have carefully perused the two decisions of this Court referred to above vis-a-vis the contention of Sri Srinivasan. In Suligavi's case [1980] 46 STC 335 (Kar); (1980) 2 Kar LJ 141, the question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
