TMI Blog1974 (8) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the negative, but a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Roopchand v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales TaxA.I.R. 1970 Bom. 351. has answered it in the affirmative. We are of the opinion that the Bombay view is the correct one. The respondent was a firm of dealers in handloom goods and textiles and imported those goods during the period from 1st April, 1960, to 23rd December, 1964. The firm stopped doing business from 2nd June, 1965, and was dissolved with effect from 31st March, 1966. The revenue in the State of Maharashtra served on the dealer in Tamil Nadu with a notice dated 26th October, 1969, asking him to show cause as to why the erstwhile firm should not be assessed under sub-section (5) of section 33 of the Bombay Sales Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted returns to the Maharashtra Revenue, mention in the notice was made of section 33(5). Whether a defunct firm in the absence of an enabling provision could be assessed to tax was decided by State of Punjab v. Jullundur Vegetables Syndicate(1). The Supreme Court there held that, as, for the purposes of taxing, a firm is treated as a legal entity and on its dissolution it ceases to be such an entity, unless there is a statutory provision permitting the assessment of a dissolved firm, there is no scope for assessing the firm which has ceased to have legal existence. The court was there concerned with the East Punjab General Sales Tax Rules, in particular rule 40, which merely declared the joint and several responsibility of a dealer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irm, and the firm is dissolved, then every person who was a partner shall be jointly and severally liable to pay to the extent to which he is liable under section 18, the tax (including any penalty) due from the firm under this Act or under any earlier law, up to the time of dissolution, whether such tax (including any penalty) has been assessed before such dissolution but has remained unpaid or is assessed after dissolution." Roopchand v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales TaxA.I.R. 1970 Bom. 351. held that this provision enabled assessment of a defunct firm. But Veeri Chettiar v. Sales Tax Officer[1970] 26 S.T.C. 579., took the opposite view on the ground that sub-section (3) of section 19 contained no express enabling provision. In our op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 33(5). Mr. Rajappa says that section 19 is not an assessing provision but only deals with collection. According to him, section 33(5) is the only provision which enables assessment. With reference to the last submission about section 33(5), we accept it. Assessment of a dealer who had not furnished returns can only be and is always under section 33(5). But when a defunct firm is to be assessed as if it continues to exist for the purpose of assessment, that enabling provision-and in this case it is section 19(3)-will have to be read with section 33(5). In other words, sub-section (3) of section 19 may be treated as a proviso to or an explanation of section 33(5). But because sub-section (3) of section 19 is of a general nature applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
