1990 (11) TMI 384

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r probable omissions and determining the total taxable turnover passed an assessment order. Penalty was also levied under section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, for wilful suppression. The appellants preferred appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under the Act. The appeals failed and the orders of assessment were confirmed. Subsequently they went to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal granted some relief and disposed of the appeals. The appellants then filed Writ Petition No. 8377 of 1981. In the writ petition the principal ground raised on behalf of the appellants was that after the dissolution of the partnership firm there could not be any representation by one of the partners of the dissolved f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d not contain any such specific provision permitting assessment of a dissolved firm, the want of legal sanction was removed by the Legislature by introducing section 19A with retrospective effect. Section 19A of the Act deals with the liability to tax of partitioned Hindu family, dissolved firm or other association of persons and lays down that the tax payable under the Act by such a Hindu undivided family, firm or association of persons for the period up to the date of such partition or dissolution shall be assessed as if no such partition or dissolution had taken place, and all the provisions of the Act shall apply accordingly. It also provides that every person who was at the time of such partition or dissolution a member or partner of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r dissolution. The learned single Judge, therefore, rightly repelled the submission raised on behalf of the appellants in the writ petition that service on one partner could not be considered as valid service so as to bind the appellants who, it is not disputed, were the partners of the firm at the time of its dissolution. 3.. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that both section 19A of the Act and rule 52(2) of the Rules were ultra vires the Constitution. The only challenge to the validity of these provisions is found in grounds (c) and (d) of para 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. These grounds read as follows: (c) I submit that rule 52(2) in so far as it authorises service....