Skip to content


The Sales Tax Officer Xi, Enforcement Branch Greater Bombay Vs. Poonnamal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 594 of 1972
Judge
Reported inAIR1977SC1360; (1977)4SCC599; [1977]40STC319(SC)
AppellantThe Sales Tax Officer Xi, Enforcement Branch Greater Bombay
RespondentPoonnamal and ors.
DispositionAppeal Allowed
Cases ReferredMurarilal Mahabir Prasad v. Shri B.R. Vad
Excerpt:
.....is linked with the cost of living index the whole award will have to be reopened and the entire basis on which it has been made will have to be reconsidered.   - vad [1976]1scr689 this court by a majority held in that case that the scheme of the bombay sales tax act, 1959, and particularly sections 18 and 19(3) clearly show that, notwithstanding the dissolution of a firm, it can be assessed to sales tax in respect of its pre-dissolution transactions......branch bombay, issued a notice dated march 4, 1966, to the dissolved firm under section 33 of the bombay sales tax act, 1959, in respect of the period january 1, 1960, up to september 30, 1965. the respondents thereupon preferred a writ petition in the high court of madras challenging the validity of the notice on the ground, inter alia, that since the firm was dissolved it was not competent to the appellant to initiate any proceedings for assessment of the firm. the writ petition was allowed by the high court relying on an earlier decision given by it in l.v. veeri chettiar v. sales tax officer (xi), enforcement branch, greater bombay, bombay [1970] 26 s.t.c, 579. the high court took the view that once a firm was dissolved, there was no provision in the bombay sales tax act, 1959, for.....
Judgment:

P.N. Bhagwati, J.

1. The only question which arises for determination in this appeal by certificate is whether a dissolved firm can be assessed to sales tax in respect of its pre-dissolution transactions. The respondents were at all material times partners in a firm called M/s. Ardhanari Textiles. This firm commenced business in the year 1959 and was dissolved on June 9 1965. The appellant who is the Sales Tax Officer XI, Enforcement Branch Bombay, issued a notice dated March 4, 1966, to the dissolved firm under Section 33 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, in respect of the period January 1, 1960, up to September 30, 1965. The respondents thereupon preferred a writ petition in the High Court of Madras challenging the validity of the notice on the ground, inter alia, that since the firm was dissolved it was not competent to the appellant to initiate any proceedings for assessment of the firm. The writ petition was allowed by the High Court relying on an earlier decision given by it in L.V. Veeri Chettiar v. Sales Tax Officer (XI), Enforcement Branch, Greater Bombay, Bombay [1970] 26 S.T.C, 579. The High Court took the view that once a firm was dissolved, there was no provision in the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, for assessing the dissolved firm to sales tax in respect of its prior transactions. The appellant thereupon preferred the present appeal after obtaining a certificate of fitness from the High Court.

2. The question whether a dissolved firm can be assessed to sales tax in respect of its pre-dissolution transactions under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, came up for consideration before this Court in Murarilal Mahabir Prasad v. Shri B.R. Vad : [1976]1SCR689 This Court by a majority held in that case that the scheme of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, and particularly Sections 18 and 19(3) clearly show that, notwithstanding the dissolution of a firm, it can be assessed to sales tax in respect of its pre-dissolution transactions. In view of this decision, the question no longer survives for consideration and we must hold that the appellant was entitled to initiate proceedings for assessment of the firm of M/s. Ardhanari Textiles by issuing notice dated March 4, 1966, under Section 33 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.

3. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition. There will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //