Judgment:
Nainar Sundaram, J.
1. This petitioner wants a writ of prohibition, prohibiting the respondent from prosecuting a distraint order. The distraint order has been issued by the respondent for the sales tax dues of a firm M/s. Ramu Engineering Works, which name the petitioner also bears. The assessment years are 1970-71 and 1971-72. According to the petitioner, there were series of dissolutions of firms and new firms came into existence as new entities and the last one is the petitioner and the assessee-firm is no longer in existence and the petitioner cannot be characterised as a transferee of the business of the assessee-firm within the meaning of section 27 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
2. Mr. K. J. Chandran, learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on a pronouncement of this Court in Ammonia Supply Corporation v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Rattan Bazaar Division, Madras [1972] 29 STC 356, would submit that dissolution of a firm brings about its civil death and the constitution of a new firm is by a fresh consensus and there is no element of transfer in such a contingency. Learned counsel wants this Court to scrutinise the series of documents, which have come into existence, and which, according to him, demonstrate the dissolution of the firms in succession and the new firms coming into existence in their place. First of all, the question as to whether there was a dissolution of the assessee-firm in the eye of law, and the firms that came into existence subsequently, of course, bearing the very same name, are new firms and in any event, the petitioner could not be said to be a transferee of the business of the assessee-firm, requires consideration on an assessment of complex factual features. I do not think that this Court should indulge into the scrutiny of this complex factual features, while exercising writ powers.
3. Mr. K. S. Bakthavatsalam, learned Additional Government pleader (Taxes), submits that as per the law prevailing then, which holds good even today, to govern the present case, the petitioner could as well resort to the process of a revision before the concerned Deputy Commissioner as against the distraint order and the said revisional authority can appropriately investigate this question and render a decision one way or the other. In my view, this is the proper course to be adopted on the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to resort to the process of revision within a period of four weeks from today to the concerned Deputy Commissioner, who shall entertain the same, without putting the aspect of limitation if any, and shall consider it on merits, affording an opportunity to the petitioner to subtantiate his case. Until the revision is disposed of, the impugned distraint order of the respondent shall not be prosecuted, subject to the condition the petitioner prefers the revision within the time reserved therefor in this order. Subject to the above direction, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
4. Writ petition dismissed.