1957 (2) TMI 47

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sed and Pindikoona Narayanaswami. The firm was assessed to sales tax amounting to Rs. 1,540-6-9 due to the State. The case for the prosecution was that both the accused failed to pay the sales tax despite the fact that they received demand notices on 28th March, 1955. One of the defences raised before the trial Court was that the com- plaint was bad because all the partners of the said firm were .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... v. Jacob Nadar[1951] 2 S.T.C. 53; A.I.R. 1951 Mad. 886. and B. Lachanna Patnaick, In re[1952] 3 S.T.C. 22; A.I.R. 1953 Mad. 332. , Somasundaram, J., has laid down: "Under the Act, if a firm is assessed to tax, it is the firm that must be proceeded against and prosecuted for non-payment of tax........... But, not to stand on mere technicalities, if the entire partners had been brought on record, t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to partner and a de jure partner. The Partnership Act does not make any such distinction. One test to find out whether the first accused can be said to be a partner is to see whether he can successfully bring a suit for dissolution of partnership and for accounts in his own name. It is well-settled that if the manager of a joint family enters into a partnership with another firm or with any other .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X