JAGAT BEHRI TANDON Vs. SALES TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Chaturvedi dated the 17th January, 1955, dismissing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) IN 1948 the appellant entered into partnership with two other persons, Amar Nath and Kedar nath, for the purpose of dealing in bullion and ornaments and in forward contracts in gold and silver. The business was carried on under the name of Messrs. Bans Gopal Amar Nath and each of the three partners had a one-third share. On the 16th July, 1950, Amar Nath retired from the partnership and on the following day the firm was reconstituted, the name being changed to messrs. Bans Gopal Kedar Nath and the partners being the appellant and Kedar Nath each of whom had a half share. The reconstituted firm carried on the business previously conducted by the former firm and took over the assets and liabilities of the latter. The firm of Bans Gopal kedar Nath did not succeed financially and disputes having arisen between the partners the firm was dissolved on the 18th April, 1952, from which date it discontinued business. By assessment order dated the 19th July, 1952, the Sales Tax Officer, Etawah, who is the first respondent, determined the turnover of the firm Bans Gopal Amar Nath for the period 1st April, 1950, to 16th July, 1950, at Rs. 64,636-5-6 and the sales tax payable by that firm at Rs. 1,005-4-3. The respondent Sales Tax Officer by a further assessment order dated the I7th May, 1953, determined the turnover of the firm Bans Gopal Kedar Nath for the assessment year 1951-52, that is, from the 1st April, 1951, to the 31st March, 1952, at Rs. 80,000 and the tax payable at r,s. 1,250. The appellant filed an appeal against the second of these assessment orders and that appeal, we are informed, is pending before the Judge Appeals, Sales Tax. In February, 1954, the respondent Sales Tax Officer took steps under Section 8 of the Act for the recovery of the tax assessed in respect of the assessment year 1951-52. Section 8 provides that in default of payment the amount of tax may be recovered as if it were an arrear of land revenue, and on the I3th february, 1954, the respondent Sales Tax Officer issued a certificate under that section addressed to the Collector, Etawah, who is the second respondent, requesting the latter to recover the sum of Rs. 1,250 from the appellant who was described in the certificate as a partner in the firm Bans Gapal Kedar Nath. The appellant thereupon filed the petition out of which this appeal arises challenging the validity of the assessment orders dated the 19th July, 1952, and the 17th march, 1953, and praying that those orders be quashed and that the respondent Sales Tax Officer be directed to withdraw his certificate under Section 8 of the Act. The learned Judge was of opinion that the two assessment orders were valid orders and he accordingly dismissed the petition.

(3.) THE appellant's principal contention is that a partnership firm cannot, after it has been dissolved, be assessed to sales tax. It was further argued, although the point was not very strongly pressed, that even if such an assessment can be made the tax cannot be recovered from the persons who were partners of the firm at the time of its dissolution.