Business transfer liability under sales tax law turns on total transfer, while part-transfer is treated separately.

Section 24 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959 distinguishes between transfer of an entire business and transfer of only part of a business: liability under section 24(1) arises only where the whole business is entirely transferred, while section 24(2) separately addresses part-transfer and the transferor's liability for stock of goods. The discussion also notes that a writ under Article 226 may still be entertained where the availability of ordinary statutory remedies was not clear when the party acted. In the stated facts, the impugned order was unsustainable without a specific finding of total transfer and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether liability under section 24 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959 arises only on transfer of the entire business and not on transfer of a part of the business. (ii) Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the existence of ordinary remedies under the Act.

Issue (i): Whether liability under section 24 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959 arises only on transfer of the entire business and not on transfer of a part of the business.

Analysis: Section 24(1) uses the expression that the ownership of the business is "entirely transferred", which, on its natural meaning, refers to transfer of the whole business. Section 24(2) separately deals with transfer of a part of the business and fastens liability in that limited situation on the transferor in respect of the stock of goods transferred. Reading the two sub-sections together, the provision draws a clear distinction between transfer of the entire business and transfer of only a part of it. The impugned order proceeded on the footing that the petitioners were transferees of the whole business, but it contained no specific finding that the entire business had in fact been transferred.

Conclusion: Section 24(1) applies only to transfer of the entire business, not to transfer of a part of the business. The impugned order could not be sustained without a specific finding on total transfer.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the existence of ordinary remedies under the Act.

Analysis: The Court held that the petitioners could not fairly be denied relief on the ground of alternate remedies. The legal position regarding the availability of recourse under section 21 had not crystallised when the petitioners acted, and they were therefore justified in invoking the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the circumstances, the existence of ordinary remedies did not bar interference.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the Court could grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was quashed and the matter was sent back to the sales tax authorities for fresh consideration under section 21(2) of the Act after hearing the parties and permitting further materials, with liberty to pursue ordinary remedies thereafter.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing provision expressly uses "entirely transferred" and separately provides for transfer of part of a business, liability for transfer under the first limb cannot be imposed without a specific finding of transfer of the whole business.

---