1978 (4) TMI 213 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Dissolved firm not liable for tax as separate entity under tax laws. Appeals dismissed, writ petitions rejected.

Sri Pulak Chandra Paul Versus Commercial Tax Officer, Chinabazar Charge and Others

The court held that a dissolved firm cannot be assessed as a separate entity under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, or the Central Sales Tax Act, ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether a dissolved firm can be assessed under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, or the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Assessment of a Dissolved Firm under Sales Tax ActsThe primary question addressed in these appeals is whether a dissolved firm can be assessed under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, or the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The appellant contended that the absence of any provision in either Act for the assessment of sales tax on a dissolved firm rendered the assessment notices issued by the Commercial Tax Officer illegal and without jurisdiction.The appellant relied heavily on the Supreme Court's observation in *State of Punjab v. Jullundur Vegetables Syndicate* [1966] 17 S.T.C. 326 (S.C.), which stated that a firm, although not a legal entity under partnership law, is treated as a legal entity for tax purposes. The Supreme Court noted that upon dissolution, a firm ceases to be a legal entity, and without a statutory provision permitting the assessment of a dissolved firm, such an assessment would be invalid.However, the court distinguished this case by emphasizing the context in which the Supreme Court made its observation. The East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, explicitly included a firm in the definition of 'dealer,' thereby conferring a legal status on it. Conversely, the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as amended by the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1950, excluded firms from the definition of 'dealer.' The court noted that the legislative intent was clear in withdrawing the legal status previously conferred on firms.The appellant also argued that a firm should be considered a 'person' under section 3(32) of the Bengal General Clauses Act, which includes any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. However, the court held that while the partners of a firm could be considered a 'body of individuals' and thus a 'person,' the firm itself could not be treated as a separate entity independent of its partners. The court found no legislative intent to treat a firm as a separate unit for sales tax assessment under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.The appellant further relied on the Supreme Court decision in *Murarilal Mahabir Prasad v. Shri B.R. Vad* [1976] 37 S.T.C. 77 (S.C.), where the court held that a firm was a dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, due to specific provisions recognizing a firm as a legal entity. The court found this decision inapplicable, as the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, did not contain similar provisions.The court also considered the application forms for registration under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, which referred to 'proprietor/partner' but did not mention 'firm.' This omission further indicated that the legislature did not intend to recognize firms as separate assessable units.Finally, the court noted that the registration certificates in question were issued to the individual partners, not the firm. Therefore, even if the appellant's contention were correct, the firm was not registered as a dealer, and its dissolution was immaterial.Conclusion:The court concluded that the firm could not be assessed as a separate entity under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, or the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, following its dissolution. The appeals were dismissed, and the writ petitions challenging the assessment notices were rejected. The judgment was stayed for six weeks, as requested by the appellant's counsel.