9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (5) TMI 463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment of the said firm for seven years at a time commencing from 1988-89 to 1994-95. After receiving the said notice, she tried to contact with the other three partners, the pro forma-respondents herein, but failed. As her husband was seriously ill, she sent her agent to appear before the third respondent and made a prayer for time to submit her response. But without disposing of her prayer the said respondent hastily made assessment order under section 9(4) of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 (for short, the Act ) ex parte for the aforementioned seven years, though on August 29, 1991 the partnership firm was finally closed and, therefore, there could not be any reason for tax assessment during the period 1991-92 to 1994-95. She made an a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd respondent to reassess the tax liability. But the Advocate's notice could evoke no response from the said pro forma-respondents. On November 7, 1996 she received a revised notice from the third respondent asking her to deposit the entire amount of tax so assessed absolving thus the other partners from payment of any part of the assessed tax. According to her she was liable to pay only 1/4th of the tax and therefore, the revised notice slapping upon her the entire tax liability is illegal and arbitrary. On November 15, 1996 she issued another Advocate's notice urging the third respondent to stop the illegal proceeding for realisation of the entire amount of tax from her, but there was no action taken on the said notice. Thus, o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that an appeal would lie against the order of assessment, which she was at liberty to resort to. As regards liability of other partners, the contention is that they had ceased to be partners in 1988 when the second petitioner became the proprietor of the firm with effect from August 3, 1988 and due to that reason the entire liability of the firm had to be saddled with the second petitioner only. The three pro forma-respondents, who were initially partners of the firm brought to light in their counter-affidavit that all of them had retired from the partnership firm in the year 1988 by deed of agreement executed by all the partners including the second petitioner. The copies of the deed of retirement have been enclosed at annexures R/1 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent asking her to pay the entire amount of Rs. 4,20,736 is unsustainable in law; and (2) the ex parte order of assessment is bad in law as the same was passed without first disposing of the prayer under section 10 of the Act for cancellation of the order of assessment. Several other grounds have been taken in order to show infirmity in the impugned order. As regards the first part of the challenge, upon perusal of the deed of retirement as well as the letter of the second petitioner to the Superintendent of Taxes, there remains no doubt in my mind that the said pro forma-respondents have no tax liability for the period from 1988-89 onwards. All her pleas that the retirement was not after two months notice in terms of the partnership ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sl. No. Year of assessment As per return of the petitioner Turnover assessed by the authority 1. 1988-89 Rs. 1,90,820 Rs. 5,58,698 2. 1989-90 Rs. 4,27,335 Rs. 12,07,769 It is strongly argued by Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners, that though the firm was closed on August 29, 1991, the official respondents made assessments not only for the years noted in the above table but for seven years from 1988-89 to 1994-95. Section 10 of the Act contemplates a situation when an order of assessment may be cancelled and fresh a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee. Though it has been pleaded in the counter-affidavit of the official respondents that as no return was submitted during all those years the authority could not make any assessment, the same does not stand to reason, if looked into from the relevant provisions of the Act. Such a delay is bound to cause enormous disadvantage to the petitioner. The Act clearly provides that if no return is submitted in time the assessing authority may proceed to make its own assessment under section 9 of the Act, which the said respondent could do for all the years commencing from 1988-89. By not doing so the assessing authority is undoubtedly at default by taking away the opportunity of making response for every year of assessment. It is also not in di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
