Judgment

P. S. KAILASAM, J.:- This appeal is by Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. P., Indore and three others by certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh from the judgment and order dated 16th March, 1971 in Miscellaneous Petition No. 85 of 1969, whereby the High Court allowed the petition filed by the respondents and quashed (a) the sanction for criminal prosecution of the respondents accorded by the Commissioner of Sales Tax by his memorandum dated 29th April, 1966 and (b) the proceedings before the criminal court started under Section 46 (1) (c) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, in Criminal Case No. 4344 of 1968.

2. The three respondents are the three partners of a firm known as M/s. Ramakrishna Ramnath. It is a registered partnership firm. The firm was engaged in business of sale of bidis and during the relevant period used to purchase tendu leaves from the dealers. The firm failed to file any return and get itself registered under the State of Madhya Pradesh. The firm was treated as unregistered dealer and was assessed to sales-tax on the basis of the best judgment. There were three assessment orders. The first was for the period 1-11-1956 to 23-10-1960 by an order dated 26th December, 1964, assessing the firm at Rs. 16,380 and imposing a penalty of Rs. 5,000. The second order related to the period 21-10-1960 to 8-11-1961 and was dated 20th December, 1964. The firm was assessed to Rs. 8,080 and a penalty of Rs. 2,000 was imposed. The third order was dated 20th December, 1964 and was for the period 9-11-1961 to 28-10-1962. The assessment against the firm was for Rupees 8,000 and a penalty of Rs. 2,000 was imposed. The demand notices were issued in the forms prescribed in the name of the firm by the Sales Tax Officer. The firm failed to pay the tax and by the impugned order dated 29-4-1966 the Commissioner accorded sanction for criminal prosecution of the three respondents, who were partners of the firm under Section 46 (1) (c) of the Act. A challan was filed on 9th December 1968 and a Criminal Case No. 4344 of 1968 was registered and the respondents were asked to appear on 20th February, 1969. On 17th February, 1969 the respondents filed writ petition out of which the present appeal arises for quashing the order of sanction for criminal prosecution dated 29th April, 1966 given by the Commissioner of Sales Tax and of the proceedings before the criminal court in Criminal Case No. 4344 of 1968.

3. By its judgment dated 16th March 1971 the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the sanction for criminal prosecution given by the Commissioner of Sales Tax and the criminal proceedings. The High Court considering the general and legal importance of the question, granted a certificate of fitness to the Commissioner of Sales Tax and the present appeal is thus before this Court.

4. Two questions that arise in this appeal are: (1) whether the three partners can be held liable for the tax assessed against the firm; (ii) whether the sanction given by the Commissioner for prosecution under Section 46 (1) (c) is sustainable in law.

5. Regarding the first question the High Court held that the result of non payment of tax against a firm cannot be visited on individual partners of the Firm. It was only the firm that was assessed for liability for tax for all the three periods. In spite of repeated notices the firm did not pay the assessment or the penalty that was imposed. The notice of demand in Form 19 prescribed under M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred as Act) was sent to the firm demanding payment of the tax and penalty with a direction that the whole sum should be deposited in the Government treasury within 30 days from the receipt of the notice of the demand and the treasury receipt in proof of payment of the sum should be produced before the Sales Tax officer. The dealer received a notice on 6th January, 1965, but failed to deposit the sum as directed. On these facts th