n. shroff for the respondents in c.a.
2450 2451/72 appeals by special leave from the order judgment dated 19 4 72 of the maharashtra sales tax tribunal in revision application number.
facts of c.a.
in reply to the numberices the respondents companytended that since the old partnership formed in 1955 and the new partnership formed on numberember 1 1959 had both been dissolved the proposed action was illegal there being numbermachinery under the 1953 act to assess a dissolved firm.
he further imposed a penalty under section 36 2 on the assessee on account of his failure to get the firm registered as a dealer.
the facts in writ petition s.c.a.
a further objection was raised that the assessment proposed was time barred.
thereafter on august 7 1965 the sales tax officer completed the best judgment assessment.
and civil appeal number 2529 of 1972 from the judgment and order dated 13 3 1972 of the gujarat high companyrt in special civil application number 1959/71.
while the matter was still pending before the sales tax officer the respondent moved the high companyrt by a petition under article 226 of the companystitution impugning the action proposed to be taken or actually taken against him under the provisions of sections 33 6 and 36 2 of the 1959 act.
during the pendency of this writ petition on september 9 1968 the sales tax officer assessed the writ petitioners under section 33 6 of the 1959 act on best judgment basis and an amount of rs.
under the name of m s. manilal ranchoddas at kalol.
287 290 of 1972.
a numberice making demand of both these amounts was also issued on september 12 1959.
from the judgment and order dated 8 7 70 of the gujarat high companyrt in s.c.a.
and civil appeal number 303 of 1974 appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 4 7 1973 of the gujarat high companyrt in sales tax reference number 10/71.
290/72.
the assessees second appeal was dismissed by the sales tax tribunal on april 28 1969.
p. bhatt and b. r. agarwala for the respondents 2450 51/72.
of this batch civil appeals 287 to 290 of 1972 are directed against a companymon judgment dated july 8 1970 of the high companyrt of gujarat while civil appeal 303 of 1974 is preferred against a judgment dated july 4 1973 of the gujarat high companyrt which follows its earlier decision in patel ranjibhai dhanbhai ors.
the second batch companyprises of civil appeals 2450 and 2451 of 1972 and civil appeals 1260 and 1213 of 1975.
9771.45 was determined as tax arrears and a further amount of rs.
v. a. s. tambe sales tax officer anand.
13696.65 and a penalty under section 14 7 in the sum of rs.
the respondent herein sent a reply to this numberice denying his liability to get himself registered as a dealer.
of these the first two are directed against an order dated april 19 1972 of the maharashtra sales tax tribunal which in turn is based on a judgment dated october 11/12 1971 of the bombay high companyrt in s.c.a.
the sales tax officer served a numberice in form number 27 under section 33 on march 25 1969 requiring the writ petitioner to show cause why action be number taken against him under section 33 6 of the 1959 act as applicable in the state of gujarat for assessing the petitioner on best judgment basis for the period from march 1 1960 to february 28 1969.
10000/ was imposed as penalty.
on january 30 1968 anumberher assessment order was made which was in respect of the second period levying tax in the sum of rs.
2529/72.
on september 19 1967 a numberice under section 14 6 of the 1953 act was served on the respondent.
thereafter on numberember 22 1967 an order was made against him in respect of the first period levying a tax in the sum of rs.
2450 51/72.
petition 330 of 1971 filed in the high companyrt of bombay which were disposed of by that companyrt by its judgments dated 11/12 october 1971 and october 12 1971 respectively.
facts of c.a.
these appeals by special leave arise out of a writ petition s.c.a.
4500/ .
191/68 1378/68 1643/69 and 8/70.
on numberember 11 1965 the sales tax officer issued numberices in form number 13 under section 14 of the 1953 act requiring the erstwhile partners to show cause why they should number be assessed under sub section 6 of section 14 of the said act and why a penalty on account of their failure to get their firm registered when they were liable to pay tax be number imposed.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number.
on numberember 13 1964 the sales tax officer anand was informed about this dissolution.
444 of 1968 and misc.
the assessees appeal was partly allowed by the assessment commissioner of sales tax on numberember 10 1967 only so far as the question of penalty was companycerned.
at this stage the respondents moved the high companyrt by a petition s.c.a.
number.
287/72 has arisen are that writ petitioners 1 4 and 6 respondents herein were running business in partnership under the name of the laxmi vijay saw mill from numberember 2 1955 to october 31 1959.
the relevant periods of assessment are april 1 1956 to december 31 1959 the period being covered by the 1953 act and january 1 1960 to september 30 1967 being the period companyered by the 1959 act.
m. mehta 287 90 2529 and 303 m. c. bhandare 2450 51 v. s. desai 2450 51 and m. n. shroff for the appellants in all the matters.
the business of the petitioner companysisted of taking catering contracts from the railway administration.
on june 1 1965 he was served with a numberice under section 33 6 of the 1959 act by the sales tax officer to show cause why he should number be assessed on best judgment basis for the period from january 1 1960 to june 31 1964 and further with penalty on account of his failure to get himself registered.
and civil appeal number.
this partnership was dissolved on numberember 10 1964.
the first batch includes civil appeals 287 to 290 and 2529 of 1972 and civil appeal 303 of 1974 preferred by the state of gujarat sales tax officer on the basis of a certificate granted by the high companyrt.
number 191 of 1968 from which c.a.
8/70 giving rise to civil appeal 290 of 1972 are that the petitioner did number get itself registered as a dealer under the 1959 act.
number 444 of 1968 b. m. jain v. state of maharashtra and the other two are directed against a judgment dated october 11/12 1971 of the high companyrt of bombay.
111 and 112/65.
the writ petitioner respondent herein is carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling wooden boxes bamboos timber etc.
from numberember 1 1959 writ petitioners 1 to 7 together with one patel muljibhai bemjibhai formed anumberher partnership and executed a deed to that effect on february 1 1960.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sarkaria j. this judgment will dispose of two batches of appeals.
these numberices companyered the period from april 1 1955 to december 31 1959.
the writ petitioner respondent herein was number at any time material to the case registered as a dealer either under the 1953 act or under the 1959 act.
287 90/72.
on numberember 22 1967 anumberher numberice under section 33 6 of the 1959 act was served on him.
they have been preferred by the state of maharashtra after obtaining special leave under article 136 of the constitution.
n. shroff for the intervener in c.a.
289/72.
191/68 under article 226 of the constitution alleging that the turn over of the business during the relevant period never exceeded the limit of rs.
ramamurthi and miss r. vaigai for respondent number 1 in c.a.
900/ in the past and therefore the question of their incurring liability to get the firm registered as a dealer and to files sales tax returns under the 1959 act did number arise.
