1960 (8) TMI 75

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....st of his judgment under section 12(3) of the Act. Before doing so he issued a notice to the petitioners' firm. The first hearing before the Sales Tax Officer was on 2nd February, 1956. The petitioners did not appear before him. The case was then adjourned 13 times, but the petitioners did not appear. The Sales Tax Officer then estimated the turnover of the petitioners and made an order for assessment assessing the firm to tax of about Rs. 1,56,000. This order was made on 3rd January, 1957. The petitioners appealed against this order to the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax. He confirmed the order of the petitioners' assessment and dismissed the appeal. The petitioners then approached the Sales Tax Tribunal, but the Tribunal also dismissed t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....93. Rule 37 of the Mysore Sales Tax Rules provides that if a partnership is dissolved every person who was a partner shall send a report of the dissolution to the assessing authority within 30 days of such dissolution. It was held that in the absence of the compliance with rule 37 and in the absence of proper proof of the alleged dissolution prior to the date of assessment, the assessee-firm could not complain that the order of assessment was invalid because it was made after the dissolution of the assessee-firm. The decision of the Allahabad High Court was also not followed by the Madras High Court in Ponnuswami Gramani v. Collector of Chingleput District[1960] 11 S.T.C. 80. It was held in that case that although the Madras General Sales ....