Per Shri Balwant Singh —These four references made by the learned Member Shri G. B. K. Hooja raise the question whether a firm could be assessed to sales-tax after it was dissolved. As a common point of law is involved in all these references, they will be disposed of by this joint answer.

Briefly the facts of the case are that the partnership firm started operating on 9.11.61. The business of the firm was subsequently dissolved on 23.11.63. The intimation of the dissolution of the firm was conveyed to the Sales Tax Department on 28.11.63. The Sales Tax Officer, however, issued notice for the purpose of assessment on 29.11.63, which was received by the assessee on 30.11.63. On 13.2.64 the petitioner submitted an application denying liability of assessment on the ground that the firm stood dissolved with effect from 23.11.63 and that the intimation of the dissolution of the firm under sec. 9 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act had been communicated to the Department on 28.11.63. The learned Sales Tax Officer, however, rejected the application of the petitioner vide his order dated 13.2.64 on the ground that under sec. 6(6) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, a dealer was liable to be assessed until his registration certificate was cancelled. As the assessee had failed to file the required returns or statements of sales and to produce any evidence in support of the sales effected during the period of assessment, the learned Sales Tax Officer proceeded to assess the assessee to the best of his judgment under sec. 10 (1) (b) of the Sales Tax Act on 19.2.64. The petitioner filed four revisions before the Board of Revenue in which the question whether a firm could be assessed to sales-tax after it was dissolved came up for adjudication which has been referred to us tor answer.

The learned counsel for the firm mainly relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Punjab vs. M/s Jullundur Vegetables Syndicate, Civil Appeal No. 588 of 1964 in which their lordships have held that the dissolved firm could not be assessed. His contention was that a firm under the Rajasthan bales lax Act was a separate assessable legal entity and that there was no machinery provided under the Act for making the assessment of a dissolved firm and the assessing authority had no power or jurisdiction to assess the firm after dissolution of the firm. His second contention is that even if it is presumed that sec. 9 of the Rajasthan bales Tax Act has been amended empowering the authorities to assess the dissolved firm with retrospective effect, no proceedings can be initiated in those cases which were closed prior to the coming into force of the amending Act. He has argued that the Rajasthan Taxation Laws Amendment Act came into force on 4th May, 1964 whereas their assessment was done by the assessing authority on 19.2.64, when the dissolved firm was not liable to assessment to sales-tax. He has cited Pt. Triveni Shyam vs. Board of Revenue (RRD 1964 p. 342) in which it was held by their lordships of the Rajasthan High Court that the proviso to sec. 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act by sec. 4, Tenancy (Second Amendment) Act, 1956-"Shall be deemed always to have been so added" is not retrospective and the transaction prior to amendment was not affected. Their lordships held that the deeming clause was violative of provisions of Art. 19(1)(f) of Constitution.

The learned Government Advocate has argued that firm was a separate assessable unit and the dissolution of a firm does not put an end to its liability for assessment till its registration certificate is cancelled by the appropriate authority. The second contention of the learned Government Advocate is that even if it is held that the firm was not liable to assessment to sales-tax after its dissolution, an assessment thereunder can be made on the group of partners who constituted the firm before it was dissolved. He has further argued that in the Punjab Sales Tax Act there was no provision expre

Click Here to Read the rest of this document