Tambe, J. - (1.)This is a reference under section 34(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. The facts giving rise to this reference in brief are : A partnership firm consisting of two partners Kundanlal Hansraj Sahani and Balkrishna Mathuradas Sahani, was doing business of bidi manufacture at Sholapur, and sale of bidis under the name and style "Kundanlal Hansraj". The bidis were sold under certain labels. It appears that the applicant Bherulal Maniklal Kothari had advanced moneys to the said partnership firm sometime, and over Rs. 32,000 had remained to be paid by the said partnership firm to the applicant. On 23rd October, 1955, the said partnership firm entered into an agreement with the applicant, wherein in satisfaction of the aforesaid loan of Rs. 32,000 and odd, the partnership sold the goodwill of its aforesaid business and the right to use its 10 bidi label marks. The partners further agreed that they would not in future use the 10 bidi label marks in their business, or do any business or start any work at Sholapur. Prior to the date of transfer, the Sales Tax Officer had assessed the partnership firm to sales tax for the period 1st April, 1953 to 31st March, 1954, and 1st April, 1954 to 31st March, 1955, by his orders dated 30th September, 1955, and 27th June, 1955, respectively. The tax liability found due from the partnership firm was Rs. 640-14-6 and Rs. 2,260-7-6 respectively, and for the period 1st April, 1955 to 30th September, 1955, the assessment was made by the Sales Tax Officer by his order dated 24th August, 1956, and sales tax amounting to Rs. 1,453-15-6 was imposed on the said partnership firm.
(2.)On 25th October, 1956, the Sales Tax Officer wrote a letter to the applicant informing him that "as the goodwill of the business of Shri Kundanlal Hansraj Sahani of Kundanlal Hansraj, bidi merchant, had been taken over by him, he was held to be a transferee of the said concern, and was therefore liable for all the dues remaining unpaid by Shri Kundanlal Hansraj, under section 26(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953". The appeal filed by the applicant before the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax failed, so also the revision filed before the Additional Collector of Sales Tax. The applicant preferred a revision before the Sales Tax Tribunal, and before it, it was contended that the applicant was not liable to pay sales tax assessed on the said partnership firm because he was not transferee of the entire business. It was also contended that mere transfer of goodwill of the firm and right to use certain labels would not amount to the transfer of the entire business within the meaning of section 26(1) of the Act. The applicant thus being not a transferee of the entire business of the said partnership firm was not liable to be saddled with the tax liability of the said partnership firm. This contention failed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal however, modified the order of the Sales Tax Officer by substituting the following sentence for the last sentence in the order of the Sales Tax Officer reproduced above :
"Therefore the liability to pay all the dues payable in respect of the business and remaining unpaid at the time of the transfer."

(3.)On an application made by the applicant under section 34(1), the Tribunal has drawn up a statement of the case and referred to us the following question :
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the applicants are liable as transferees under section 26(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 ?"