Post-dissolution sales tax liability cannot attach to a former partner absent express statutory extension, and non-intimation only attracts penalty.

After dissolution of a firm, a former partner could not be fastened with sales tax liability for the post-dissolution period merely because notice of dissolution was not given to the tax authorities; the statutory scheme limited joint and several liability to the period when the firm remained liable, and non-intimation attracted only the prescribed penalty. The Court also treated writ jurisdiction as available where statutory appeal, revision, and reference remedies would be futile, noting that repeated representations had already failed. The post-dissolution demand was therefore unsustainable, while liability up to dissolution remained unaffected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, after dissolution of a firm, sales tax liability for the post-dissolution period could be fastened on a former partner merely because the dissolution was not intimated to the sales tax authorities; (ii) whether the petitioner was obliged to exhaust the statutory remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

Issue (i): Whether, after dissolution of a firm, sales tax liability for the post-dissolution period could be fastened on a former partner merely because the dissolution was not intimated to the sales tax authorities.

Analysis: Section 18 imposed joint and several liability on partners while the firm remained liable, and section 19(3) extended liability only to tax due up to the time of dissolution. Section 30 required intimation of dissolution, but the only consequence of non-compliance was the penal consequence under section 63(1)(g). Rule 18 prescribed the mode and time for giving the intimation. The statutory scheme did not contain any provision extending post-dissolution tax liability against a retired partner merely because notice of dissolution was not given. The Court also noted that, unlike the Gujarat enactment, the Bombay Act had no proviso continuing liability until intimation was received.

Conclusion: No liability could be fastened on the petitioner for the post-dissolution period; the impugned assessment, penalty orders, and demand notice were invalid to that extent and were set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was obliged to exhaust the statutory remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

Analysis: The existence of appeal, revision, and reference remedies did not bar writ jurisdiction where resort to those remedies would be futile. On the facts, repeated representations and personal approaches had failed to yield any relief, making further recourse under the Act an exercise in futility.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the objection based on alternative remedy was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded only in part. The post-dissolution demand could not stand against the petitioner, but the pre-dissolution liability remained enforceable, and no order as to costs was made.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of an express statutory provision extending liability after dissolution, a former partner cannot be made liable for post-dissolution sales tax arrears merely because the dissolution was not intimated, and failure to intimate can attract only the penal consequence expressly provided by the statute.

---