C N SAVANKUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Order of the Court was pronounced by the Chief Justice.-- The assessee was a partner of a firm by name Chenglan's New Stores. For the assessment year 1960-61 it filed a return disclosing a turnover of Rs. 2,27,112. Its accounts were rejected and the firm was assessed on a turnover of Rs. 4,62,250. In O. P. No. 86 of 1962 this Court set aside the assessment order and remanded the proceedings back to the officer. A fresh notice was issued on 6th January 1964 to which a reply was sent on 31st January 1964. There were other notices which were issued by the Department, which it is unnecessary to notice. It is enough to state that the firm was dissolved on 22nd August 1962 and that the assessment was completed on 30th June 1972. On these facts, the only contention that now survives for examination before us in this revision is whether the assessment completed on 30th June 1972 was valid and proper.

(2.) Counsel for the assessee contended that under the General Sales Tax Act, 1125 by which the proceedings for assessment are governed in this case as they were initiated while the said Act was in force, a dissolved firm cannot be assessed, and that the disability to assess continues even after the passing of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 which contains S.21A enabling assessment of a dissolved firm. In support of the position that a dissolved firm cannot be assessed under the provisions of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125, counsel drew our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Jullundur Vegetables Syndicate AIR 1966 SC 1295 . In that case, M/s Jullundur Vegetables Syndicate, a firm doing business in vegetables, was dissolved on 11th July 1953 and a notice of dissolution was sent to the Department on 18th July 1953. It was assessed to sales tax on 30th May 1953. The proceedings assessing the firm to tax were quashed by the Financial Commissioner and a fresh assessment was made on the turnover of the firm. It is not clear whether the fresh proceedings were initiated or whether the earlier proceedings initiated before the dissolution of the firm were merely continued. But the High Court had proceeded on the basis that the firm had been dissolved before fresh proceedings for assessment were initiated. On these facts it was observed by the Supreme Court that the assessability had to be decided under the provisions of the 1953 statute. We shall quote the following observations made by the Supreme Court:

(3.) Counsel for the assessee contended that even so, the assessment in this case had been made only on the revision petitioner who is only one of the partners of the dissolved firm. This is a point which has not been pleaded or considered by any of the authorities below, and we are unable to entertain it for the first time in this revision.