BHANWARLAL BINJARAM Vs. ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three writ petitions by M/s. Bhanwarlal Binjaram, Soorsagar, Jodhpur, a dissolved partnership firm, challenges the validity of the three notices dated 19 -9 -1975 issued by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Ward II, Circle 'A', Jodhpur, under Sec. 2(1) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 upon the partners of the dissolved firm, in relation to the accounting periods 1959 -60, 1960 -61 and 1961 -62. The contentions advanced in these petitions are common and, therefore, they are dealt with by this common order.

(2.) The facts may be shortly stated. By three orders of re assessment dated 18.8.1966, 12 -10 -66 & 25 -4 -67 the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer brought to tax the turnovers of M/S. Bhanwarlal Binjaram escaping assessment in the years in question. In appeal, the petitioner contended that the firm having been dissolved in 1965 Diwali, the Assessment Commercial Taxes Officer could not have passed the orders of re -assessment for the years in question without serving the partners with notice under Sec. 12(1) of the Act and without affording them an opportunity of bearing. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals on the ground that the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer had failed to apply his mind to the requirements of Sec. 12(1) of the Act. He, accordingly, set aside the orders of re assessment and remitted the cases for taking further action, according to law.

(3.) In pursuance thereof, the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer served the partners of the dissolved firm with Individual notices dated 19.9.1975 under Sec. 12(1) in form ST 12A In response to the said notices, the partners filed their replies questioning the validity of the impugned notices, particularly on the ground of limitation. On 28 -11 -1975, the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer served them with the usual notices in form ST 12, fixing the cases for hearing on 20 -12 -1975. Thereafter, he served them with notices dated 18.3.1976 under Rule 54 to show cause why penalty under Sec. 16(1)(c) of the Act should not be imposed. The writ petitions have been filed by the dissolved firm.