Joint and several tax liability of a partner survived alleged settlement, and the claimed refund was rejected.

Joint and several liability under the Bombay Sales Tax Act meant a partner remained liable for the firm's tax dues unless a valid statutory discharge was shown. No provision empowered the State Government or Commissioner to enter into an individual settlement absolving the partner, and the alleged settlement was not proved by any order or contemporaneous finalisation. The quantification by the Commissioner did not override the statutory liability, and a civil court decree obtained in separate proceedings did not bind the tax authorities, who were not parties to that suit. The claim of discharge therefore failed, and the request for refund also failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was discharged from liability for the firm's sales tax dues on the basis of an alleged settlement and payment of the quantified amount, and whether the amount already paid was refundable.

Analysis: Section 18 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 makes the liability of a partner for the firm's dues joint and several. The Act contained no provision empowering the State Government or the Commissioner to enter into a settlement with an individual partner so as to absolve him from the firm's tax liability. The alleged settlement was not proved by any order, the contemporaneous correspondence did not record any final settlement, and the petitioner's own conduct in not withdrawing parallel proceedings cast doubt on the claim. The quantification made by the Commissioner could not override the statutory liability or operate as a binding settlement. The civil court decree relied upon by the petitioner did not bind the tax authorities, who were not parties to that suit.

Conclusion: The petitioner failed to prove any valid settlement or any right to be discharged from the assessed liability, and the claim for refund also failed.

---