SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1974 Supreme(Mad) 366

K.VEERASWAMI, GOKULAKRISHNAN, NATARAJAN
Sales Tax Officer (Xix), Enforcement Branch, Bombay – Appellant
Versus
K. M. S. Mari Chettiar – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:K. Venkataswami, K. C. Rajappa, Advocates.

Judgment :-

VEERASWAMI, C.J.

This matter has been placed before a Bench of three Judges, because a Division Bench which heard the matter in the first instance felt that the view in Veeri Chettiar v. Sales Tax Officer required reconsideration. The question is whether section 19(3) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, enabled assessment of a defunct firm. Veeri Chettiar v. Sales Tax Officer decided by this court answered it in the negative, but a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Roopchand v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax 1970 AIR(Bom) 351.) has answered it in the affirmative. We are of the opinion that the Bombay view is the correct one. The respondent was a firm of dealers in handloom goods and textiles and imported those goods during the period from 1st April, 1960, to 23rd December, 1964. The firm stopped doing business from 2nd June, 1965, and was dissolved with effect from 31st March, 1966. The revenue in the State of Maharashtra served on the dealer in Tamil Nadu with a notice dated 26th October, 1969, asking him to show cause as to why the erstwhile firm should not be assessed under sub-section (5) of section 33 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act. To quash this notice, t











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top