TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1966 (11) TMI 75
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(No. 46 of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The appellant did not submit any return, and consequently, a notice under section 11(5) of the Act was issued, and the case was fixed for 1st July, 1960. The appellant then filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the imposition of purchase tax on cotton, and proceedings in the assessment of sales tax were stayed under the orders of the High Court. After the decision of the High Court in that writ petition, proceedings were resumed on 30th November, 1961. Then, there were various dates fixed in the proceedings and adjournments were granted at the request of the appellant. Ultimately, 17th February, 1962, was fixed for final hearing. On that date, informatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the dissolution of the firm was given to the prescribed authority and intimation of the dissolution was given only by the counsel during one of the hearings before the final assessment order was passed. On these facts, the High Court took the view that the dissolution of the firm did not stand in the way of the Assessing Authority passing the order of assessment, because it was alleged that the dissolution took place after the assessment proceedings had been initiated and the intimation of the dissolution was not given until shortly before the final order of assessment was passed. This view taken by the High Court has to be held to be incorrect because of the decision of this Court in the State of Punjab v. M/s. Jullundur Vegetables Synd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ision given by this Court, it has to be held that the High Court in this case proceeded on the wrong basis that an assessment of the appellant-firm could be made because the firm was dissolved after the assessment proceedings had been initiated and intimation of that dissolution was not given in accordance with section 16 of the Act. Learned counsel appearing for the Assessing Authority urged before us that, in this case, the High Court had not at any stage, recorded a definite finding that in fact the firm was dissolved either in February, 1961, or on 8th August, 1961, as claimed by the appellant. This appears to be correct. The High Court, in its judgment, has, when dealing with the facts, referred to the dissolution of the firm as "alle....