9911796707
TMI Blog1967 (4) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Miscellaneous Petition No. 107 of 1963 quashing three assessment orders dated May 31, 1956, May 6, 1957 and August 9, 1957, by grant of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. In or about 1947, the respondent entered into a partnership with one Chandratan Sadani and one LaIji Ghelabhai to carry on the business of manufacturing and selling utensils and brass-ware in the name and style of Bharat Metal Industries, Raipur, hereinafter referred to as "the said firm". The said firm was duly registered as a dealer under the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). In May, 1954, the Sales Tax Officer, Raipur, started proceedings for assessment of the said firm for the years 1949-50, 1950-51 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mand dated March 15, 1963. On behalf of the appellants Mr. B. Sen put forward the argument that the High Court was wrong in holding that the assessment proceedings were barred by limitation and the interpretation put by the High Court on rule 67 of the Rules framed under the Act was not correct. It is not necessary in this appeal, to decide this question because we are of opinion that the respondent is entitled to succeed on the ground that the orders of assessment were void because there was a dissolution of the partnership on September 13, 1952, and the partnership had ceased to exist long before the assessment orders were made. On this point the High Court expressed the view that the liability of a partnership firm to assessment of sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny scope for assessing the firm, which ceases to have legal existence. There cannot also be a distinction in principle between an assessment made on a firm under a proceeding initiated before its dissolution and one made in a proceeding started after the dissolution. In either case, unless there is an express provision, no assessment can be made on a firm which has lost its character as an assessable entity. In the course of its judgment this Court expressly overruled the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Lalji v. The Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, Raipur [1958] 9 S.T.C. 571., where a different view had been taken. In accordance with the view expressed by this Court in The State of Punjab v. Jullundur Vegetables Syndicate&nbs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present case on September 13, 1952, and after the dissolution of the partnership there is no question of agency as between the partners and the decision in the previous writ petition against Lalji cannot be binding as regards the other partner, Gendalal. The principle of the doctrine of res judicata is that judgments and decrees bind only parties and privies. To make a person a privy he must have acquired an interest in the subject-matter of action by inheritance, succession or purchase subsequent to the action or he must hold the property subordinately, i.e., as a sub-lessee. In the present case, Gendalal does not claim his interest in the partnership through Lalji and it follows therefore that the principle of res judicata cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
