9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (11) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o levied under section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, for wilful suppression. The appellants preferred appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under the Act. The appeals failed and the orders of assessment were confirmed. Subsequently they went to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal granted some relief and disposed of the appeals. The appellants then filed Writ Petition No. 8377 of 1981. In the writ petition the principal ground raised on behalf of the appellants was that after the dissolution of the partnership firm there could not be any representation by one of the partners of the dissolved firm and since notice had been served only on one of the partners of the dissolved firm before assessment pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion was removed by the Legislature by introducing section 19A with retrospective effect. Section 19A of the Act deals with the liability to tax of partitioned Hindu family, dissolved firm or other association of persons and lays down that the tax payable under the Act by such a Hindu undivided family, firm or association of persons for the period up to the date of such partition or dissolution shall be assessed as if no such partition or dissolution had taken place, and all the provisions of the Act shall apply accordingly. It also provides that every person who was at the time of such partition or dissolution a member or partner of the Hindu undivided family, firm or association of persons as well as legal representatives of any such perso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellants in the writ petition that service on one partner could not be considered as valid service so as to bind the appellants who, it is not disputed, were the partners of the firm at the time of its dissolution. 3.. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that both section 19A of the Act and rule 52(2) of the Rules were ultra vires the Constitution. The only challenge to the validity of these provisions is found in grounds (c) and (d) of para 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. These grounds read as follows: (c) I submit that rule 52(2) in so far as it authorises service on one of the partners of a dissolved firm to the exclusion of other would be violative and in contravention of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o no indication whatsoever of any ground from which the vires of the rule can be said to have been questioned. The scrutiny of the entire writ petition leads us to an unmistakable conclusion that the challenge to the vires of the provisions was made in the writ petition without any justification and only casually. It appears to have been made after the appellants were unsuccessful both before the appellate authority as well as before the Tribunal. Having filed appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and second appeals before the Tribunal questioning the merits of the assessment and levy of penalty, the appellants have only tried to prolong the litigation by filing the writ petition and questioning, without laying down foundation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
