TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1967 (4) TMI 193
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndas ... Re. 0-2-0 2. Ranchoddas Ramdas ... Re. 0-2-0 3. Mahendra Kumar Chunilal ... Re. 0-6-0 4. Ishwarlal Ranchoddas ... Re. 0-6-0 It may be mentioned that No. 3 is the son of No. 1 and No. 4 is the son of No. 2. There is a Bombay firm known as "Chunilal Bhagavandas and Company", comprising of the same partners, but with this difference, namely, that the share of each of the aforesaid partners is 4 annas. In the year of assessment, the Tirupathur firm claims to have transferred to the Bombay firm jaggery which has been valued at Rs. 4,40,675.87 nP. It is with this part of the transactions that we are concerned in this revision case. The department took the view that this transfer of jaggery of the aforesaid value represente....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....firmed that decision, holding that the transfer in this case amounted to a sale. In the view of the Tribunal, even though the two firms had the same partners, the fact that the profit-sharing ratio of the partners in the two firms was different, made a difference and that this difference would enable the two firms being viewed as two different persons, with the result that one firm could effectively sell goods to another, thereby attracting the levy of sales tax on the transaction. Against this decision, the assessees have filed this revision case. Several decisions have stressed the fact that a firm as such has no legal status as a person distinct from the partners who constitute the firm. It has been laid down often that the name "firm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the Bombay firm in any particular ratio, or that the difference in the ratio of the shares which they owned in the partnerships of the Bombay firm and the Tirupathur firm would make any difference, and lead to the inference that the particular partners in the Tirupathur firm were transferring a particular interest in the jaggery in question to other persons in the Bombay firm, who constitute the partnership. So far as the assets are concerned, there is no evidence to show that the partners of the two firms at Tirupathur and Bombay respectively were entitled to any share other than a joint share; in other words, as regards a particular asset, all the partners stood in the same relationship of joint ownership, without it being possible to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of an assessable entity for the purpose of the taxing law. Then the Bench put its conclusion succinctly that in the case of the alleged sale of goods from the firm of Murugan Electricals to Electric Fabrication and Engineering Company, in the eye of the law, the transaction would be nothing more than the right hand taking the goods from the left. There is another decision of this Court reported in Raju Chettiar and Brothers v. State of Madras[1955] 6 S.T.C. 131., which took a similar view. In that case, a firm dealing with bullion took in as a partner one Ramalingam Chettiar on and from a particular date and a fresh deed of partnership was executed. It was clearly recited in the partnership deed that the new partner Ramalingam Chett....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as the actual assessment itself was made after the dissolution. We are of opinion that the principles laid down in the first three decisions cited above will clearly apply to the present case. We have already referred to the fact that the definition of "dealer" in the Central Sales Tax Act does not carry forward the terms of the explanation to the definition of "dealer" in the Madras General Sales Tax Act so as to include a firm as an assessable entity. But we do not want to base our decision on this aspect of the definition of dealer. On the other hand, we will prefer to base our decision on the fact that the definition of "sale" in substance is the same both in the Madras General Sales Tax Act and in the Central Sales Tax Act. The deci....