- (1.) In this application the points required to consideration are (a) whether a firm is included within the definition of 'dealer' under Section 2(c) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 and (b) whether a dissolved firm can be assessed to sales tax under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in (1) Additional Tashildar and others v. Gendalal, (1968) 21 STC 263?
(2.) The petitioner and his brother Kanak Paul had been carrying on business in partnership under the name and style of Messrs. Gopal Chandra Paul & Sons having its place of business at 126B, Chinabazar Street, Calcutta-1. The said partnership business was dissolved on November 17, 1972 and the intimation of the said dissolution was duly given to the Commercial Tax Officer, respondent No.1, by two separate letters by April 21, 1973. The petitioner in the said letters also requested the respondent No.1 to cancel the registration certificate under Bengal Finances Tax Act as well as under the Central Act. Thereafter, on April 19, 1973, the respondent No.1 called for the production of certain books of account including bank accounts of the said partnership firm and in replying thereto the petitioner by a letter dated May 12, 1973 informed the respondent No.1 that the firm to which the aforesaid notice was sent had already been dissolved and no action under the State Act can be taken on a dissolved firm. Thereafter, on 18th May, 1973, a similar notice was issued by the Commercial Tax Officer for the production of necessary books of account. The petitioner being aggrieved moved this Court in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution on 16th August, 1974.
(3.) It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the State Act and the Central Act have made no provision permitting assessment of dissolved partnership firm and the respondent No.1 without any authority of law issued the impugned notices proposing to assess the dissolved partnership firm, such notices are illegal and without jurisdiction. Reliance was placed upon the above decision of the Supreme Court reported in (1) 21 STC 263.;