TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d after the introduction of the proviso in the year 2007 though for a earlier period. The proprietor who was alive at that point of time did not take any such plea. Nor this Court, has been apprised of such fact when an appeal by one of the sons who is also the partner of the partnership firm to be aforesaid plea in an appeal filed before the Tribunal. Since the appeal abates it necessarily implies that the original order stood affirmed. Court, therefore, does not find any ambiguity in an action of the respondent authorities and, therefore the writ petition is devoid of merit. The same is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. - Decided against the appellant. - W.P. No. 35 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 21-1-2014 - Harish Tando ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f partnership and carrying on the business which also attracts the excise duty in the trade name and style of Shree Ganesh Forging Co. having separate assessee number. 2. The petitioner says that being a different legal entity, the notice issued against, the demand of the erstwhile proprietorship concerned is bad and, therefore is not binding upon the partnership firm. 3. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Advocate for the petitioner heavily relies upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of the State of Punjab v. M/s. Jullundur Vegetables Syndicate reported in AIR 1966 SC 1295 to contend that the assessment proceeding cannot continue against the dissolved firm. He further, relies upon a judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owards the excise duty imposed on the said proprietorship firm. 6. The judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the Jullundur Vegetable Syndicate s case (supra) is distinguishable on facts because of the provisions contained under East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. The Apex Court upon taking note of the definition clause of the dealer as well as the restriction being imposed in the different provisions of the said Act held that the authorities were not justified in adjudicating the assessment on a dissolved firm. The present case is not a case where the assessment imposition is made upon a dissolved firm nor this Court finds any similar provisions contained under Central Excise Act, 1944 which was thereunder the East Punjab Gene ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
