N N SUBRAMANIAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Ramakrishna and Company, a partnership. Firm comprising of three partners, were dealers in peas, fried peas and puffed rice. For the assessment year 1973-74, the firm reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 2, 85, 928.37 and Rs. 44, 480.93. The assessing authority issued summons for the production of the records. But the assessee failed to respond. After issuing a notice the assessing authority proceeded to assess the firm for the year 1973-74 on a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 12, 43, 713.48, taxable at 3 1/2 per cent. For the assessment year 1974-75 they had reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 39, 833.23 and Rs. 19, 144.25, respectively. However, when summons was issued for the production of the accounts the assessee did not produce the accounts. Due to certain irregularities the returns were rejected as incorrect and incomplete and the assessing authority proceeded to resort to best judgment assessment. The proposal notice was served on two partners, but they did not respond. The assessing authority therefore assessed the firm on a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 88, 568.21 and Rs. 73, 132.46 for the assessment year 1974-75, which order was passed on July, 16, 1976. A penalty of Rs. 639 was imposed under section12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(2.) AGAINST the said two orders of assessments the petitioner herein namely, N. N. Subramaniam filed two appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. There was a delay of 2, 428 days in firing the appeal against the assessment order dated February 21, 1975 (1973-74) and a delay of 1883 days in filing the appeal against the assessment order dated July 15, 1976 (1974-75). The petitioner filed two petitions, M.P. Nos. 262 and 263 of 1981, for condonation of the delay in filing the appeals. The appellate authority dismissed these petitions and rejected the appeals as time barred. Second appeals were therefore filed before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and they were dismissed by the Tribunal on September 4, 1982. These two tax revision cases are against the said common order of the Tribunal.

(3.) BEFORE we deal with the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner we must, refer to section19A of the Act and rule 52(3) of the TNGST Rules. Section 19A(a) of the Act says that even after a dissolution of a firm the tax payable under the Act by the firm for the period up to the date of such dissolution shall be assessed as if no such dissolution had taken place and all the provisions of the Act shall apply accordingly. Section 19A(b) of the Act provides that every person who was a partner of a firm at the time of the dissolution, shall notwithstanding such dissolution, be jointly and severally liable for the payment of tax, penalty or other amount payable under the Act by the firm, whether the assessment was made prior to or after such dissolution. Rule 52(1) of the TNGST Rules provides for manner of service of any notice, summons or order under the Act. Rule 52(2) of the TNGST Rules with which we are concerned is as follows : "Where any Hindu undivided family, firm or other association of persons is partitioned, dissolved or discontinued, notice, summons or orders issued under the Act or these Rules may be served on any member of the Hindu undivided family, any person who was a partner (not being a minor) or member of the association, as the case may be, immediately before such partition, dissolution or discontinuance." *