Partner liability for firm tax dues remains enforceable where retirement and dissolution are disputed and statutory notice is absent.

Recovery of sales tax from a partner may be sustained where disputed facts remain about dissolution of the firm or valid retirement, and where the statutory requirements for retirement notice are not shown to have been met. The article notes that joint and several liability under the Tripura Sales Tax Act can continue for partners at the time of discontinuance or dissolution, and that a recovery notice under section 26-A is not ordinarily interfered with in writ jurisdiction when an alternate statutory remedy exists. On those facts, writ relief was held inappropriate and the recovery notices were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the recovery notices issued under section 26-A of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 could be interfered with in writ jurisdiction in view of the petitioner's plea that he had retired from the partnership firm and was no longer liable for the firm's tax dues.

Analysis: The liability under the Act depended on whether the partnership had been dissolved or the petitioner had validly retired before the recovery action, and whether the required public notice of retirement had been given under section 32 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The deed itself did not establish that the firm was a partnership at will, the materials did not show any public notice of retirement, and the petitioner's continuing connection with the firm was also supported by the respondents' documents. The statutory scheme under section 19 of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 fastened joint and several liability on persons who were partners at the time of discontinuance or dissolution. The existence of disputed questions of fact and the availability of a statutory remedy under section 21 of the Act made interference under article 226 inappropriate, particularly because section 26-A operated notwithstanding any contrary contract or law.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and the recovery notices were not quashed.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the tax recovery proceedings failed, leaving the petitioner to pursue any inter se claims against the other members of the firm in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where liability to recover sales tax from a partner depends on disputed facts about dissolution or retirement, and the statute provides a specific remedy, writ interference is unwarranted unless the petitioner clearly shows cessation of liability in the manner required by law.

---