TMI Blog1966 (4) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Central and Punjab Sales Tax Acts respectively. It is alleged in the petition that the firm Messrs. Mangat Rai Madan Mohan was a partnership concern which consisted of two partners Mangat Rai and Madan Mohan. This firm was dissolved by a deed of dissolution dated 31st May, 1962. An intimation of dissolution was given to the Assessing Authority on 2nd June, 1962, when a request was made for cancellation of the registration certificate granted under the Punjab and the Central Sales Tax Acts. A notice in Form S.T. XIV dated 30th November, 1963, was received from the Assessing Authority. During the course of the proceedings on 6th October, 1964, petitioner No. 1 brought to the notice of the Assessing Authority that the firm stood dissolv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ciation of persons, and such family, firm or association is partitioned, dissolved or disrupted, as the case may be,- (a) the tax payable under this Act by such family, firm, or association of persons for the period up to the date of such partition, dissolution or disruption may be assessed as if no such partition, dissolution or disruption had taken place and all the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly; and (b) every person who was at the time of such partition, dissolution or disruption a member or partner of an undivided Hindu family, firm or association of persons shall, notwithstanding such partition, dissolution or disruption, be liable severally and jointly for the payment of the tax including interest and penalty, if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat an assessment can be made even after the dissolution has been effected which means that the assessment proceedings can be taken at any time after the dissolution of the firm so long as they are within limitation. The point that has arisen is one of importance and is likely to arise in other cases also. In my opinion, this petition should be decided by a Division Bench. I direct that the necessary orders of the Honourable the Chief Justice may be obtained in that behalf under proviso (b) to rule 1(xx), Chapter 3-B of the High Court Rules and Orders, Volume V. In pursuance of the abovesaid order of reference the petition came on for hearing before the Division Bench. G.C. Mittal, for the petitioners. A.M. Suri for the Advocate-General ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Sales Tax Act and Rs. 1,706.92 under the Act on best judgment basis. In the return filed on behalf of the respondents the facts with regard to the dissolution of the firm were not specifically denied but it was stated that the petitioners might be put to strict proof of the same. As regards the information regarding the dissolution of the firm as also the request for cancellation of the registration certificate, it was admitted that an application dated 2nd June, 1962, was received from the petitioners for cancellation of the registration certificate. It was further stated that another application regarding the dissolution of the firm was given on 3rd August, 1962, when the case for reassessment for the year 1960-61 was still pending. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, dissolution or disruption had taken place and all the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly; and (b) every person who was at the time of such partition, dissolution or disruption a member or partner of an undivided Hindu family, firm or association of persons shall, notwithstanding such partition, dissolution or disruption, be liable severally and jointly for the payment of the tax including interest and penalty, if any, payable under this Act by such family, firm or association of persons, whether assessment is made prior to or after such partition, dissolution or disruption.........." An appeal was taken to the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Full Bench mentioned above and the decision of their Lordships is repor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er for the turnover for the period from 1st April, 1960, to 31st March, 1961, on 17th April, 1964, and 19th May, 1964, and the assessment order was passed on 25th September, 1964, under the Act and the Central Sales Tax Act. It was held that the petitioner-firm was not liable to assessment in respect of any period prior to its dissolution on 10th April, 1962, in respect of which no subsisting assessment order had been made before the date of dissolution. The learned Judge followed the decision of P.D. Sharma, J., in Bishan Dial Hans Raj v. The State of PunjabCivil Writ No. 483 of 1963 decided on 20th April, 1965., and of the Supreme Court already referred to before. Apart from the matter being concluded by the decision of their Lordships, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
