TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1973 (10) TMI 47
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 and In default to undergo R.I. for three months. The order was confirmed In appeal, The applicant is a partner and manager of the firm, M/s. Satya Prakash Rajesh Kumar, which was assessed to sales tax over Rs. 36,000 for the year 1967-68. He had not deposited the tax in spite of notice. He was, therefore, prosecuted under section 14 of the Act. The only point that has b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een followed, as a partner of the firm-on that question I do not express my final opinion-he is not liable as the firm is the person who made the default and who should have been prosecuted." This authority was considered by a single Judge of this court in the case of Hira Lal v. State[1955] 6 S.T.C. 662; 1955 A.L.J. 813. It was distinguished. The learned single Judge further observed that in c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the partnership law a firm is not a legal entity but only consists of Individual partners for the time being, for tax law, incometax as well as sales tax, it is a legal entity. If that be so, on dissolution, the firm ceases to be a legal entity." Their Lordships were not considering the case of prosecution of a partner or partners but they were considering the case of a dissolved firm for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the joint family. There were only three partners and the other two partners were ladies belonging to the family of the applicant. Liability of the partners is joint and several. The applicant had himself filed revision before the Judge (Revisions) as managing partner of the firm and had obtained stay order on the condition that half of the sales tax shall be paid by him. Notice of demand was duly....