MURARILAL MAHABIR PRASAD Vs. B R VAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which arises for decision in this appeal is whether under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 and the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 a dissolved firm can be assessed or re-assessed to sales-tax in respect of its pre-dissolution turnover.

(2.) The first appellant - M/s. Murarilal Mahabirprasad - was a partnership firm constituted under a deed of partnership dated December 3,1953. It was doing business at 30- Commercial Chambers, Masjid Bunder Road, Bombay, as importers, commission agents, indenting agents del credere agents and financiers and also as wholesale dealers in colours, chemicals, dyes etc. The firm consisted of 5 partners:appellants 2 to 5 and one other who died in 1965. The firm was registered as a dealer under the Acts of 1953 and 1959.

(3.) Under diverse orders of assessment passed prior to its dissolution, the firm was assessed to sales tax for the period July 1953 to March 31, 1958. On November l0, 1960 the Sales Tax Officer (VIII), Enforcement Branch Bombay, seized certain documents from the firm's office. Notices were issued to the firm from time to time for attendance to explain these documents. Over sixty meetings took place between the firm's representatives and the authorities, at the end of which, two notices dated November 20, 1963 came to be issued to the firm. By the first of these notices, the firm was asked to explain certain discrepancies in its books of account. The second notice was issued under Section 15 of the Act of 1953, by which the firm was asked to show cause why the assessment already made for the period 1-4-1957 to 31-3-1958 should not be re-opened on the ground that certain sales were suppressed by the firm as a result of which a part of its turnover had escaped assessment Respondent 1, the Sales Tax Officer (VIII), Enforcement Branch, Greater Bombay, fixed the hearing of the assessment proceeding on April 1, 1965 but the firm requested by its letter dated April 3, for an adjournment till May on the ground that one of the partners had died suddenly in Delhi and that the other partners would be back in Bombay by May. On May 26, 1965 respondent addressed a notice to the firm stating that the hearing would be taken up from day to day from June 14, 1965 and that the partners should remain present at the hearings.