Court quashes tax assessments on dissolved partnership, ruling liabilities on assets' taker, not firm.

The court granted the writ, quashing sales tax assessments against a dissolved partnership firm. It held that liabilities post-dissolution fell on the partner who took over assets, not the dissolved firm. The court emphasized that mere intimation of dissolution was sufficient to absolve tax liability, rejecting the need for further proof. Strict interpretation of fiscal statutes favored the citizen, with the court ruling that assessments post-dissolution were invalid. The court highlighted the authority's duty to verify changes before finalizing assessments, ultimately restraining recovery of amounts due and awarding costs to the petitioners.

---

---

Issues:
1. Quashing of sales tax assessments made against a dissolved partnership firm.
2. Liability of partners for sales tax post-dissolution.
3. Requirement of proof of dissolution for tax liability absolution.

Analysis:
The petitioners sought a writ to quash sales tax assessments made against a dissolved partnership firm, arguing that the tax was not payable as the firm had been dissolved, and the liability fell on a partner who took over assets and liabilities post-dissolution. The firm, registered under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, was dissolved, and assets were taken over by a partner. The respondents admitted receiving intimation of dissolution but claimed no proof was provided, leading to finalizing assessments without notice. The key issue was whether the assessments were valid post-dissolution and if proper procedures were followed.

The respondents contended that no proof of dissolution was provided despite intimation, leading to finalizing assessments without proper verification. The court noted that as per section 16 of the Act, the dealer must inform authorities of any change, which was done in this case. The court highlighted that the rules did not mandate proof of change, and it was the authority's duty to ensure compliance before proceeding with assessments. The cancellation of the firm's registration certificate was noted, but circumstances leading to cancellation were not disclosed by the respondents.

The court emphasized that fiscal statutes must be strictly construed, and any deficiencies should benefit the citizen. Referring to precedent, the court held that a dissolved partnership firm is not liable for assessments initiated post-dissolution. The court rejected the argument that proof of dissolution was necessary for absolving tax liability, stating that mere intimation sufficed, and the statute did not require further action from the taxpayer. The court emphasized that the statute's language should not be stretched to impose liability on former partners without proper authority satisfaction. Consequently, the court granted the writ, quashing the demands and restraining respondents from recovering amounts due under the assessments, with costs awarded to the petitioners.

---