NATHU LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order it is proposed to dispose of the above mentioned five revision petitions filed by Nathulal, ex-partner of the firm Maluk Chand Nathulal, Abu Road, against the orders of the Sales Tax Officer, Sirohi and Jalore dated the 13th February, 1964 (Revision No. 35) and 19th February, 1964 (four cases-Revision No. 51 to Revision No. 54 ).

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the orders of the Sales Tax Officer, Sirohi and Jalore on the ground that a dissolved firm is not liable to be assessed under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. In this connection, he sought reliance upon the Full Bench Ruling of the High Court of Punjab, in Jullundur Vegetable Syndicate vs. THE Punjab State reported as 1962 Sales Tax Cases Page 251. This case arose from a reference made by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Punjab under the provision of sec. 22 of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. It came up, originally, before a D. B. of the aforesaid High Court, and in view of the conflict of authority of the question involved in the reference the D. B. referred the case for decision to a Bench. THE reference was formulated by the learned Judges constituting the Division Bench as follows : - "whether a Partnership firm, which is a registered firm under the provisions of the Punjab Sales Tax Act and which was in existence throughout the period for which assessment of sales tax has to be made, ceases to be liable to the said assessment by the mere fact that it has dissolved before the proceedings for assessment are initiated. "

(3.) THE cap it all, the learned counsel for the petitioner cited AIR 1964 Supreme Court 497, which lays down the law in connection with the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court. This authority has widened the scope of the powers to be exercised by the High Court in the discharge of their supervisory functions, and over rules the interpretation placed, on sec. 115 of the C. P. C. by the Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in AIR 1953 Raj 137, which relying upon an earlier judgment of a D. B. (AIR 1953 Raj 90) had held that - "where it is open to a party to raise a ground of appeal under sec. 105 of the Code from the final decree or order, with respect to any order which has been passed during the pendency of a suit, it should be held that an appeal in that case lies to the High Court within the meaning of the term fin which no appeal lies thereto' appearing in sec. 115 Civil Procedure Code," and the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is excluded. "