Radhakrishnan, J.

Whether an incoming partner could be made liable personally for the arrears of sales tax accrued prior to his induction as a partner of the firm is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.

2. Petitioner is a partner of M/s. Capital Builders, a registered partnership firm. Partnership firm was registered on 3-11-1993 by two partners by name Anitha Paul and Latha. Latha ceased to be a partner on 1-11-1996 and the petitioner was inducted as the partner on the said date in the partnership firm.

3. The Tahsildar (RR), second respondent herein, issued a demand notice dated 2-5-2005 under section 34 of the Revenue Recovery Act calling upon the petitioner to pay sales tax arrears of M/s. Capital builders for an amount for Rs.13,25,062/- for the assessment year 1995-96. Petitioner came to know about the demand notice only on 27-5-2005 when the notice was affixed on the petitioner’s building at Karimpatta Road leased out to one Ganesh, Managing Director of Synergy Homes (P) Ltd. Second respondent issued notice of attachment dated 2-5-2005 to the said Ganesh requesting him to hold and pay the monthly rent of the said building to the second respondent so as to appropriate the said amount towards sales tax arrears for the period 1995-96. Petitioner replied to the said demand notice stating that he was not partner of the firm during the said period and not liable for payment of sales tax for that period. Petitioner, it was pointed out, was inducted into the partnership only on 1-11-1996 and he cannot be saddled with the liability towards sales tax for the period from 1-4-1995 to 31-3-1996. The second respondent, Tahsildar however, did not take any steps on the complaint filed by the petitioner. Consequently he has approached this Court and filed WP(c).No.16841 of 2005. Writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge holding that a new partner joining the firm would be equally liable like continuing partners under section 21 of the KGST Act. Aggrieved by the same this appeal has been preferred.

4. Senior Counsel Sri. P. Balachandran submitted that the learned single Judge has committed a grave error in not properly appreciating the facts of the case as well as the law on the point. Counsel referred to section 21 of the KGST Act as well as section 31 of the Partnership Act and contended that a new partner cannot be held liable for the amount due before his entry as a partner of the firm. Special Govt. Pleader (Taxes) Sri. Raju Joseph on the other hand contended, since petitioner is the Managing Partner of the firm, he is also equally liable for the amount due towards sales tax.

5. Ex.P1 is the register of firms maintained under section 59 of the Indian partnership Act, 1932, which would indicate that petitioner joined as a partner of the firm only on 1-11-1996. Ext.P2 is the demand notice dated 2-5-2005, which would indicate that sales tax arrears of Rs.13,25,062/- is due for the period 1995-96, i.e., for the period from 1-4-1995 to 31-3-1996 before the petitioner became a partner of the firm. Section 21 of the KGST Act deals with liability of the firms which reads as follows:

“21. Liability of firms:- (1) Where any firm is liable to pay any tax, fee or other amount under this Act, the firm and each of the partners of the firm shall be jointly and severally liable for such payment.

(2) Where a partner of a firm liable to pay any tax, fee or other amount under this Act retires, he shall notwithstanding any contract to the contrary, be liable to pay the tax, fee or other amount remaining unpaid at the time of his retirement and any tax, fee or other amount due up to the date of retirement, though unassessed.”

Section 21(1) stipulates that where any firm is liable to pay any tax, fee or other amount under the Act, the firm and each of the partners of the firm shall be jointly and severally liable for such payment. Section 21 of the KGST Act therefore makes the firm as well as its partners join