TMI Blog1976 (10) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e restricted and the court can normally interfere only if the finding is based upon no evidence or is based upon extraneous or irrelevant evidence or is otherwise perverse. The same cannot be said of the finding of the sales tax authority embodied in its report sent to the High Court in the present case thus no sufficient ground to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. - C.A. No. 442 of 1971, C.W. No. 413 of 1962 - - - Dated:- 8-10-1976 - KHANNA H.R. AND JASWANT SINGH JJ. V.C. Mahajan and O.P. Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Harbans Singh, Advocate, for the respondent No.2 -------------------------------------------------- The judgment of the Court was delivered by KHANNA, J.- This is an appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the appellant-firm had been dissolved before the date of assessment order and, as such, the sales tax authorities could not make an order for assessment. The High Court See [1964] 15 S.T.C. 165. dismissed the petition on the ground that the assessment proceedings had been initiated long before the alleged date of dissolution of the firm. The appellant thereafter came up to this Court See [1967] 19 S.T.C. 381 (S.C.). in appeal against the said decision of the High Court See [1964] 15 S.T.C. 165. This Court set aside the judgment of the High Court See [1964] 15 S.T.C. 165., following its decision in the case of State of Punjab v. Jullundur Vegetables Syndicate [1966] 17 S.T.C. 326 (S.C.); [1966] 2 S.C.R. 457. The case was remanded to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority that the firm had stood dissolved. All that was intimated on February 17, 1962, was that the firm had ceased to do work in February, 1961, and that a formal document had been executed on August 8, 1961. It was also not the case of the appellant that all the six partners of the appellant-firm had signed that document. Another factor which weighed with the High Court was that though intimation is required to be given under section 16 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act regarding the dissolution of a firm within thirty days of such dissolution, no such intimation was given by the appellant-firm until April 2, 1962, i.e., nearly eight months after the alleged date of dissolution. In our opinion, the facts and circumstances referred to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
