The assessee paid some amounts towards sales tax thus determined, but there remained some arrears of sales tax i.e., Rs.
The Sales tax authorities attempted to recover the arrears of tax from the respondent as the purchaser of the business.
Ganapatia Pillai, J. who heard the petition dismissed it.
The respondent thereafter moved the Madras High Court under Art.
The respondent appealed to the Commercial Tax Officer as well as to the Board of Revenue, but the appeals were dismissed.
1218 1 9 for 1949 50.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 13, 1963 of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No.
Purushottam Raju was the sole proprietor of the business and had been assessed to sales tax in respect of his turnover for the years 1948 49 and 1949 50.
The respondent 6 63 denied liability to pay sales tax but his companytention was over ruled by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer.
226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the orders of the Commercial Tax Officer and the Board of Revenue.
696 of 1966.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The respondent purchased, by a registered instrument dated October 5, 1956, the business carried on by one Purushottam Raju under the name All India Trading Company.
The respondent took the matter in appeal under the Letters Patent.
10 of 1962.
Ram Reddy and A. V. Rangam, for the appellant.
IX of 1939 , hereinafter called the Act, can be made liable for arrears of sales tax due from the dealer in respect of transactions of sale which took place before the, transfer of the business under Rule 21 A of the Rules framed in exercise of the powers companyferred on the State Government by s. 19 of the Act.
IO of 1962.
3836 4 0 for 1948 49 and Rs.
Ganapathy Iyer, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. The question of law involved in this appeal is whether the purchaser of business carried on by a dealer as defined in the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 Madras Act No.
