Partnership tax liability and writ relief: non-reporting under Rule 19 did not defeat arrears, and attachment challenges failed.

Rule 19 required disclosure of a partnership to the assessing authority and imposed joint and several responsibility on the dealer or licensee and the partner for tax dues. Non-reporting of the partnership did not create immunity from sales tax arrears, so a partner could not avoid liability on that ground. The writ challenge to attachment was also rejected because the disputed facts required factual examination before the authorities or in civil proceedings, and the underlying tax had already been paid. Relief against encashment of the cheque was untenable because the cheque had already been cashed before the petition was filed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a partner who failed to report the partnership under Rule 19 could escape liability for sales tax arrears levied on the firm; (ii) whether the writ reliefs sought against attachment and encashment of the cheque were maintainable.

Issue (i): Whether a partner who failed to report the partnership under Rule 19 could escape liability for sales tax arrears levied on the firm.

Analysis: Rule 19 required a dealer or licensee entering into partnership to report that fact to the assessing authority and made the dealer or licensee and the partner jointly and severally responsible for tax. The rule was intended to protect the revenue by ensuring disclosure of the constitution of the partnership, not to confer immunity on a partner who failed to comply. The attempt to avoid liability on the ground of non-reporting was therefore rejected.

Conclusion: The contention was rejected and the appellant remained liable for the tax arrears.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ reliefs sought against attachment and encashment of the cheque were maintainable.

Analysis: The challenge to the attachment raised factual questions that required investigation and could be pursued before the authorities or, if necessary, in civil proceedings for recovery of the amount paid. Since the tax had already been paid in full, continuation of the attachment did not survive. The request for mandamus restraining encashment of the cheque was also untenable, particularly as the cheque had already been cashed before the petition was filed.

Conclusion: The writ reliefs were not maintainable and no relief could be granted.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in substance, and the order dismissing the writ petition was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A partner's statutory liability to pay sales tax arrears is not avoided by failure to report the partnership, and writ relief will not lie where the tax has been paid and the claimed grievance no longer survives or requires factual investigation.

---