TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (5) TMI 141
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (for short, "the Act") and dismissed the writ petition. 2. The question raised before us is whether the respondent-Revenue could resile from a settlement entered into with the assessee on the basis of which the appellant has already paid and settled his dues under the Act. 3. Since the protracted proceedings in the instant case have spawned over three decades, we would only notice the most relevant facts necessary for disposal of the appeal. 4. Facts in brief are as follows: The appellant had joined as a partner in the assessee-Firm. His status as the partner of the said Firm, not being of any consequence to the question that arises for our consideration, does not require to be noticed by us. The relevant ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y for the dues of the assessee-Firm for said assessment years. Since, the question before the Tribunal was restricted to determination and payment of liability by the appellant qua the assessee-Firm, the Tribunal had refused to adjudicate upon both: (a) whether there exists any settlement between the parties regarding the tax liability and (b) whether the appellant was relieved of his obligation under the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the appellant approached the Writ Court. The assessee had contended that he had approached the State Minister for Finance seeking settlement of his individual dues, which was accepted as well as implemented by the order of the Commissioner dated 16.01.1984 and, therefore, the appellant is absolved of al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....High Court has further noticed that Section 45 of the Act which speaks of power of remission of the Commissioner also does not contemplate any settlement of the nature claimed herein and therefore, could not be invoked to shelter the appellant from discharging his liability under the Act. Hence, the Writ Court has thought it fit to fix the entire liability of payment of sales tax on the assessee and upheld the order passed by the Revenue by the judgment and order dated 03.02.2006. 8. It is the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Writ Court, which is questioned by the assessee before us in this appeal. 9. Shri S. Ganesh, learned counsel for the appellant-assessee would submit that the appellant could not be held liable to settle tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sanction of the State Government." (emphasis supplied) 13. It would further be relevant to notice the appropriate circumstances and conditions which are prescribed by the appropriate authority adherence to which is required under Section 45 of the Act for the Commissioner to exercise his power of remission. Rules 43A, 44 and 44A speak of remission as provided for under the Act. Rule 43A provides for the remission of purchase tax payable in respect of purchases of goods specified in Schedule E of the Rules. Rule 44 speaks of certain cases where an authorised dealer or commission agent who has become liable to pay purchase tax under section 14 of the Act could claim remission. Section 44A speaks of remission of purchase tax payable by auth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... so a settlement for the payment of individual liability of partners under the partnership deed. Therefore, in our considered opinion, in the absence of any specific provision contained in the Act or the Rules, there could be no settlement with an individual partner so as to discharge him from his obligation to pay the sales tax dues payable by the assessee-Firm. 16. Further, in our view, the submission advanced by Shri Ganesh that the conditions prescribed under the statute at hand ought to be read considering the facts and circumstances of the instant case to provide beneficial meaning to the statute, also does not hold any waters. The statute herein clearly and expressly provides for the limitation on exercise of powers of remission by ....