TMI Blog1987 (2) TMI 495X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Indian Companies Act, 1956. On 1st July, 1985, five of the partners of the firm Krisp Bisuit Company retired, the petitioner joined the firm as a partner to carry on the business in partnership with Mrs. V.K. Kunhikadeeja. As per the deed of partnership, copy of which is exhibit P1, the major share in the partnership was that of the partner, and it was entitled to 95 per cent of the profits and losses of the firm. This partnership carried on business till 1st April, 1986, when it was dissolved. The business, with all its assets and liabilities, was taken over by the petitioner as a going concern. 3.. Krisp Biscuit Company had been registered as a dealer under section 14 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (the Act for short). T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... registration or was entitled to renewal of the old registration. 6.. The relevant provisions relating to registration are comprised in section 14 of the Act and in rule 5 of the Rules. Shorn of details, rule 5 requires dealers carrying on business before the commencement of the Act, and those commencing business after the commencement of the Act, whose total turnover was, or reaches, the limit specified to submit to the assessing authority of the area in which his principal place of business is situate, an application for registration. Sub-rule (7) prescribes the mode of signing and verification of the application. Sub-rule (8) with which we are concerned, deals with firms, companies, association of persons or body of individuals. As per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vate limited company. Secondly, it is stated that clause (d) of sub-rule (8) can apply only in cases where a business is taken over by a stranger to the partnership, and not when one of the partners himself takes over, and carries on, the business. A full fledged enquiry is conducted, even at the time the firm is granted registration, into the bona fides of the partners, their solvency, and the like. The same type of enquiry will have to be conducted in the case of a fresh application for registration, which in the case of a partner will be only a duplication of the enquiry already held earlier. This could not have been postulated by the rule-making authority. So runs the argument. 8.. The fact that the business is taken over by a private ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b-clause is the dissolution of the firm. When once there is dissolution, the sub-clause stands attracted. It is immaterial whether the person taking over is an individual or a non-individual. 9.. There is also no substance in the contention that this rule only postulates cases of strangers taking over the business. It is true there is some force in the contention that since all the necessary enquiries have already been made, when the erstwhile firm was granted registration, a fresh enquiry on a fresh application for registration will be a duplication, when the business is taken over by a partner himself. But that is not sufficient reason to whittle down the requirement of the rule, the language of which is clear and unambiguous. 10.. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
