Separate partnership firms cannot be clubbed for sales tax where distinct business identity and no sham are proved.

Common partners did not, by themselves, justify treating two partnership concerns as one taxable unit for sales tax purposes. Where the record showed separate deeds, establishments, accounts, bank accounts, registrations and assessments, and there was no proof of interlacing, interlocking, sham or camouflage, the firms had to be treated as distinct taxable entities. The Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act also recognised a firm as a separate dealer, supporting separate assessment of each concern. On that basis, the turnover of one concern could not be clubbed with the appellant's assessment, and the aggregation was held unsustainable in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether two partnership concerns having the same partners but separate deeds, establishments, accounts and registrations could be treated as one taxable entity for sales tax purposes and whether their turnovers could be aggregated.

Analysis: The record showed that the two concerns had the same address and common partners, but they maintained separate establishments, accounts, bank accounts, registrations and assessments, and there was no proof of interlacing, interlocking, sham or camouflage. The Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act recognises a firm as a dealer and contains separate provisions for assessment of a firm and a dissolved firm, indicating that a firm is treated as a separate taxable entity. The fact that the partners were common did not by itself justify clubbing the two businesses, especially when the materials supported the existence of two distinct firms under partnership law.

Conclusion: The turnover of the other concern could not be included in the appellant's assessment, and the aggregation was unsustainable; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the disputed turnover was directed to be excluded from the appellant's assessment.

Ratio Decidendi: Common partners do not, by themselves, make two partnership concerns one taxable unit; where separate partnership existence and separate business identity are established and no interlacing, interlocking or sham is proved, the concerns must be treated as distinct taxable entities.

---