ROOPCHAND RAGHAVJI PHANDE Vs. ABHYANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raise an important question relating to assessment of a dissolved partnership firm under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, and the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 11959. Miscellaneous Application 564 of 1965 is a petition filed on the Original Side of this Court which is directed, at the instance of the petitioners therein, to be heard along with the Special Civil Application No. 2050 of 1969 filed on the appellate Side of this Court.

(2.) MISCELLANEOUS Application No. 584 of 1965 is filed by M/s. Murarilal Mahabirprasad, petitioner No. 1, a dissolved firm, and its former partners, petitioners 2 to 5. The firm was constituted under a deed of partnership dated december 3, 1853. It carried on business as Importers, Commission Agents, indenting Agents, del Credited Agents and Financiers, at 30 Commercial Chambers masjid Bunder Road, Bombay 3, and also as wholesale dealers in colours, chemicals, dyes, spices, condiments and as general merchants. The petitioners alleged that the firm was dissolved under a deed of dissolution dated May 20, 1962. Petitioners 2 to 5 and one Sultanchand Lala Sardarimal Jain (who died on 10th March 1965) were the partners of the firm. It was registered as a dealer both under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1950 (1952?) and the Bombay Sales Tax Act 1953^ According to the petitioners the firm discontinued its business from May 1961 and the winding up of the business was done by petitioner No. 5 with the assistance of petitioners 2 to 4 who were ordinarily residing in Delhi.

(3.) THE said turnovers of the said firm were assessed by the Sales Tax authorities for the periods from July 1853 to March 31. '1958 on the basis of the returns filed by the firm under various assessment orders passed prior to its dissolution, the last order being dated October 11, 1960 in respect of the period from April 1, 1957 to January 11, 1958. On November 10, 1960, the Sales tax Officer (VIII), Enforcement Branch, Bombay, visited' the office of the petitioners' firm and seized its stock-books, account-books. for 1958-1961 and other documents. These seized documents were inspected and verified by the said officer in his office between November 10, 1960 and November 20, 1963 for the purposes of assessment of the firm for the period from 1/4/1958 to 31/3/1961 calling the representatives of the firm from time to time. The firm was represented in these proceedings by a Sales Tax Practitioner. It is further alleged in the petition that the Sales Tax Officer, B-II Ward, had called upon the firm by his letter dated June 1, 1961 to produce its deed of dissolution on june 13, 1961, and accordingly the firm produced the said deed of dissolution after the said date and also surrendered their certificate of registration, authorisation and licences under the Bombay Sales Tax Act and also the Central sales Tax Act, to the Sales Tax Officer, B-II, Ward, Bombay on June 13, 1962, and as the firm had already closed its business as stated above in or about May 1961, the Sales Tax Officer, B-II Ward had by his order dated June 26, 1962 cancelled the Central Sales Tax Registration Certificate as well as the registration certificate, authorisation and licence under the Bombay Sales Tax act, of the firm.