RANJIT SINGH Vs. ASSESSING AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this case pray for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the assessments of sale-stax made by respondent No. 1 and pray for the issue of a writ in the nature of prohibition or mandamus restraining the respondents from realising the tax due under the said two assessments which were made on 24. 10. 1959. They contend that the sales-tax sought to be recovered from them is not payable inasmuch as the assessments have been made against a dissolved partnership firm which is not permitted by law and the sales tax, if any, payable on the turnover of the relevant period was the responsibility of one Manohar Lal who took over all the assets and liabilities of the partnership firm on its dissolution of which the two petitioners and Manohar Lal were partners till 10. 3. 1957. The partnership firm used to carry on work under the name and style of M/s. Juginder Pal Rarjit Singh and comprised of three partners This firm was a registered dealer within the meaning of section 2(c)of the Bengal Finance (sales-tax) Act, 1941 as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi. The firm was dissolved by a deed of dissolution dated 10. 3. 1957 where under all the business assets and liabilities of the erstwhile partnership firm were taken over by Manohar Lal and the two petitioners, Juginder Pal and Ranjit Singh retired after receiving Rs. 500.00 each It is the contention of the petitioners that this fact of dissolution of the firm was intimated to the respondents and was dully received by them on or about 15.4. 1957, In spite of.the information,being so conveyed two assessments for Rs. 4414.13 for the assessment year 1955-1956 were made by the respondents on 25. 10. 1959 and that to without any notice and now the amount is sought to be recovered from the petitioners.

(2.) The respondents in their counter-affidavit admit receipt on 15. 4. 1957 the intimation about the dissolution of the firm but allege that no proof of dissolution was produced by the petitioners before the Assistant Sales-Tax Officer, inspite of notice asking them to do so an I so the dissolution of the firm was not recognised and the assessments were finalised. It is admitted in the counter-affidavit that personal service of notice could not be effected for finalising the assessments and so service was effected by substituted service on the address of the firm. It is further a mitted that the registration certificats of the firm being No. 16175 dated 10. 1. 1956 v as cancelled with effect from 21, 12. 1956.

(3.) The short question, therefore, that arises is : Could this assessment be made and whether it could be made in the manner that the assessement has been finalised ?