IMPORTANT POINT
There is no provision for settlement with individual partner or remission of tax on basis of any such settlement under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 or Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959.

JUDGMENT

H.L. DATTU, CJI

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 2226 of 1989, dated 03.02.2006, whereby and whereunder, the High Court has held that the appellant is liable for payment of tax under 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 assessment years are Samvat 2034 (12.11.1977 to 31.10.1978) and Samvat 2035 (01.11.1978 to 24.06.1979). The Assessing Authority had carried out the assessments and confirmed the demand for Rs.13,33,091/-under the Act and Rs.85,878/- under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, “the CST Act”) for Samvat 2034; and Rs.28,18,202/-under the Act and Rs.44,577/- under the CST Act for Samvat 2035. The appellant had preferred appeals against the aforesaid assessments before the first appellate authority, which were dismissed by order dated 30.09.1981.

5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the appellant had approached the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal (for short, “the Tribunal”). During the pendency of the said appeals, the appellant had addressed a letter to the State Minister for Finance dated 23.11.1983, seeking settlement of sales tax dues payable by him as a partner of the assessee-Firm. It is the case of the appellant that the then State Minister for Finance accepted the offer of settlement and accordingly, in the light of the said settlement, the Commissioner of Sales Tax had issued a letter on 16.01.1984 quantifying the amount due and payable by the assessee-Firm for the relevant assessment years on the basis of the partnership deed. Before the Tribunal, the respondents have denied the existence of such settlement and further submitted that there has been no decision quantifying the individual liability of the appellant and absolving him from the liability to pay 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 all the liabilities confirmed against the assessee-Firm for the relevant assessment years. The Revenue has adopted a stand that under the Act, apart from the power of remission of tax payable by the dealer under Section 45 of Act, there exists no other provision which would empower the authorities to settle the liability of an individual partner. Further, that Section 18 of the Act specifically provides that in respect of the dues of the firm, the liability of a partner is joint and several and, therefore, neither the State Minister for Finance nor the Commissioner could have legally entered into any settlement regarding the liability of individual partner in respect of the dues of the assessee-Firm.

7. The High Court, afte