Sales tax recovery requires assessment or proof of partnership; disputed facts cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction.

Sales tax recovery could not be enforced against a person unless liability was established through a proper assessment or proof that he was in fact a partner of the firm. A disputed question of partnership could not be determined in writ jurisdiction under Article 226, because it depended on factual evidence. The proper course was for the Sales Tax Officer to decide the petitioner's objection after allowing evidence to be adduced. Recovery was kept in abeyance pending that determination.

---

---

Issues: Whether recovery of sales tax could be enforced against the petitioner in the absence of an assessment order against him, and whether the petitioner's alleged partnership in the company could be determined in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: Recovery under the Act could not be sustained against the petitioner unless liability was shown through a proper assessment or by proof that he was in fact a partner of the company. The question whether he was a partner involved disputed facts and could not be decided in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appropriate course was for the Sales Tax Officer to decide the objection already filed by the petitioner, after allowing him to adduce evidence.

Conclusion: The writ court declined to decide the factual controversy, directed the Sales Tax Officer to dispose of the petitioner's objection after considering evidence, and kept the recovery in abeyance meanwhile.

---