Judgment Nand Lall Untwalia, C. J. 1. This writ application was dismissed summarily earlier by a Bench of this Court. The petitioner went up in appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in the decision Doma Sao Mohanlal V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. A. I. R.1971 S. C.1628 set aside the order of summary dismissal and remanded the case to this Court. Thereafter, this writ application was formally admitted and proceeded to hearing. 2. On the basis of the materials placed before us from the statements in the writ application and its annexures, the facts may be stated in a narrow compass. Doma Sao was the common ancestor. He died long long ago. He had four sons, Kishun Lal Sao, Biri Lal Sao, Mohan Lal Sao and Rameshwar Sao. All were members of a joint Hindu family. The undivided Hindu family was carrying on business of gold and gold ornaments at Dinapore, which is a place situated in the district of Patna but outside Patna town. It appears, in or about the year 1932, the Hindu undivided family opened a shop at Muradpur in the town of Patna. The Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944, came into force sometime in the year 194.4, according to which a dealer was required to take out a sales tax registration certificate. The business of the Hindu undivided family was carried on under the name and style of Doma Sao Kishun Lal, both at Patna and Dinapore. But it appears, as I shall presently show hereinafter, that the firm had obtained two sales tax registration certificates, one for the Patna business bearing registration certificate No. PT-II-236, and another for the Dinapore business, the registration certificate of which bore the number PT-I-6. 3. The assessment proceedings were started against, the dealer, Doma Sao Kishun Lal, carrying on business at Patna for assessment of sales tax for six quarters, namely, the last two quarters of the financial year 1945-46 and the four quarters of 1946-47. A sum of rupees nine thousand and odd seems to have been assessed as tax payable by Doma Sao Kishun Lal. This sum, according to the petitioners case, which does not seem to be in dispute, was paid. The commercial taxes department, however, went up in appeal to the Commissioner from the assessment order passed by the Superintendent of Commercial Taxes. This sum, according to the petitioners case, which does not seem to be in dispute, was paid. The commercial taxes department, however, went up in appeal to the Commissioner from the assessment order passed by the Superintendent of Commercial Taxes. The Commissioner by his order dated 11th September, 1948, remanded the case to the Deputy Commissioner for reassessment. It is not necessary to enter into the history of the delay. Suffice it to say that after about fourteen years, revised assessment was made on 29th June, 1962. According to the revised assessment, a tax of rupees forty thousand and odd became payable by the firm Doma Sao Kishun Lal in respect of the period when it was carrying on business as a Hindu undivided family. This revised assessment was challenged in appeal and seems to have been upheld. It was challenged in revision before the Board of Revenue. The learned Member, Board of Revenue, affirmed the assessment by his order dated 5th February, 1964, a copy of which is annexure A1 to the writ application. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the business of the Hindu undivided family both at Patna and Dinapore was partitioned in August, 1946, and since then the business was owned and carried on by the four branches in partnership, each having equal share in it. A partnership deed was executed on 26th September, 1946. But it was not registered. Therefore, another partnership deed was executed on 22nd April, 1947, and registered on 17th May, 1947. From the recitals, which have been quoted from the partnership deed, it appears that the partnership continued carrying on the business under the same name and style, namely, Doma Sao Kishun Lal, and the partnership owned both the business concerns, one at Patna and the other at Dinapore. 5. There was a complete partition and separation in the joint family through arbitration. The panchnama is dated 3rd April, 1955, and portions from this panchnama have been quoted in the writ application. The partnership Doma Sao Kishun Lal was dissolved on 11th April, 1955, and after partition, a new partnership was started. According to the terms of the partition, the Patna business was taken over by Mohan Lal and Lakshmi Prasad, son of Biri Lal deceased. The Patna business, therefore, was transferred to and came to be owned by Mohanlal and Lakshmi Prasad in which they had equal shares. According to the terms of the partition, the Patna business was taken over by Mohan Lal and Lakshmi Prasad, son of Biri Lal deceased. The Patna business, therefore, was transferred to and came to be owned by Mohanlal and Lakshmi Prasad in which they had equal shares. This business was carried on under the name and style of Doma Sao Mohan Lal, which is the petitioner-firm in this writ application. This new partnership was constituted on and from 14th April, 1955, for which a formal partnership deed was executed on 18th April, 1956. 6. It may be mentioned here that sales tax was assessed against Doma Sao Kishun Lal, partnership-firm carrying on business at Patna only, for the year 1949. Its dues were sought to be realised from the partnership-firm Doma Sao Mohan Lal. Realisation of tax dues from Doma Sao Mohan Lal was challenged in M. J. C. No.1157 of 1960. This application was dismissed by a Bench of this Court of which I was a member, by judgment and order dated 24th January, 1963. A copy of this judgment is annexure C to this writ application. In that case, it was held that, so far as the Patna business was concerned, Doma Sao Mohan Lal was the transferee of the Patna business of partnership, Doma Sao Kishun Lal, within the meaning of Sec.20 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947. Reference to Sec.20 was made in that case, because the assessment against Doma Sao Kishun Lal was under the 1947 Act. 7. For realisation of tax dues on the basis of the revised assessment when a certificate proceeding was started against the petitioner-firm, objection under Sec.9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act was filed by it. The Certificate Officer dismissed this objection petition by his order dated 9th December, 1963 (annexure B ). The Collector dismissed the petitioners appeal by his order dated 19th June, 1964 (annexure D ). A revision application before the Commissioner failed as per order dated 30th January, 1965 (annexure E ). The petitioner went up in second revision before the Board of Revenue and the Board has dismissed the second revision by order dated 29th September, 1965 (annexure F ). As I have already stated, the petitioner filed this writ application challenging the certificate proceeding against it. The petitioner went up in second revision before the Board of Revenue and the Board has dismissed the second revision by order dated 29th September, 1965 (annexure F ). As I have already stated, the petitioner filed this writ application challenging the certificate proceeding against it. In this writ application it did not annex a copy of the revised assessment order dated 29th June, 1962, nor prayed for its quashing. No prayer was made to quash the Boards order (annexure A1) passed on 5th February, 1964, upholding the revised assessment order dated 29th June, 1962. The challenge of the certificate proceeding was mainly on the ground that the sales tax dues in respect of the business carried on by the Hindu undivided family could not be realised from the petitioner. The petition was summarily dismissed, as I have stated earlier, by a Bench of this Court. 8. The Supreme Court after referring to Sec.17 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944, has observed : 7. Without deciding that the business in respect of which the liability to pay tax arose was entirely transferred to the appellant, the liability to pay tax assessed against Doma Sao Kishun Lal could not be enforced against the appellant. Reliance was sought, to be placed by the State upon a decision of the High Court of Patna in Writ Petition M. J. C. No.1157 of 1960 (Pat.) between Doma Shaw Mohanlal Shaw V/s. Board of Revenue. In that case, the High Court had observed that the Muradpur business of the firm, Doma Sao Kishun Lal, was entirely transferred to the petitioner-firm and hence the tax payable in respect of the said business, which remained unpaid at the time of the transfer, was payable by the transferee. The tax sought to be recovered in the proceedings out of which that writ petition arose related to the assessment year 1949-50. But each assessment period is distinct, and any decision by the authorities declaring liability to tax cannot operate as res judicata in respect of another period.8. The High Court did not hold an investigation in the present case whether the appellant was a transferee to whom the ownership of the entire business of the Hindu undivided family which was assessed to tax was entirely transferred. In the absence of such a finding, the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained. The High Court did not hold an investigation in the present case whether the appellant was a transferee to whom the ownership of the entire business of the Hindu undivided family which was assessed to tax was entirely transferred. In the absence of such a finding, the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained. In the light of the observations of the Supreme Court it has to be found out whether the petitioner is liable for payment of the sales tax dues in question. 9. Section 17 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944, provides : when the ownership of the business of a registered dealer is entirely transferred, any tax payable in respect of such business remaining unpaid at the time of the transfer shall be payable by the transferee as if he were the registered dealer; and the transferee shall within thirty days of the transfer apply for registration under Sec.7. If the sales tax dues in this case related to the Patna (Muradpur) business and if the ownership of that business was entirely transferred to the petitioner-firm, then the dues will be payable by the transferee, namely, the petitioner. The mere fact that the revised assessment was made in the year 1962 will not obliterate the liability of the transferee on the ground that at the time of the transfer there were no dues unpaid. Mr. J. N. P. Verma, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, attempted to argue that since at the time of the transfer whatever amount of sales tax had been assessed had been paid, the liability on the basis of the subsequent assessment cannot be fastened on the head of the transferee. I have no difficulty in rejecting this argument. Even if the assessment of a period preceding the transfer was made after the transfer, the dues will be deemed to be unpaid at the time of the transfer. 10. It is no doubt true that facts relating to each period in taxation matters have got to be decided with reference to the materials placed for that period and a case cannot be decided on the principle of res judicata. 10. It is no doubt true that facts relating to each period in taxation matters have got to be decided with reference to the materials placed for that period and a case cannot be decided on the principle of res judicata. But then, on the materials placed in this case, it is quite legitimate to infer that Doma Sao Mohan Lal, the petitioner-firm, is the transferee of the Patna business of the partnership-firm, Doma Sao Kishun Lal, as the entire ownership of that business had been transferred to it. The questions of importance in this case are whether the Patna business of the Hindu undivided family firm, Doma Sao Kishun Lal, was entirely transferred to the partnership, Doma Sao Kishun Lal, in the year 1946 and whether the tax dues in question related to the Patna business only. 11. For answering these questions it is not necessary to refer to any other materials than the statements in the writ petition itself. I have already stated that the registration certificate of the Patna business was PT-II-236. The Patna business was for the purpose of assessment under the jurisdiction of the Superintendent of Commercial Taxes, Patna Urban Circle. The registration certificate of the Dinapore business was PT-I-6 and the assessment was being made by the Superintendent of Commercial Taxes, Patna Circle, and not Patna Urban Circle. In that background, the statements in paragraphs 6 and 9 of the writ application become important and the relevant portions must be quoted: 6. That after the death of Doma Sao, his sons and grandsons carried on the business of the firm and house properties both at Dinapore and at Patna and opened a gold and silver shop at Muradpur, Patna, about the year 1932. The said firm was registered under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944, and was given Registration Certificate No. PT-II-236 of Patna Urban Circle.9. That following in the wake of the separation, referred to above, the erstwhile coparceners, who became joint owners of the shop at Patna, formed themselves into a partnership-firm to carry on the business which was hitherto being carried on by the H. U. F. (since disrupted) in the same name and style of Messrs. Doma Sao Kishun Lal. That following in the wake of the separation, referred to above, the erstwhile coparceners, who became joint owners of the shop at Patna, formed themselves into a partnership-firm to carry on the business which was hitherto being carried on by the H. U. F. (since disrupted) in the same name and style of Messrs. Doma Sao Kishun Lal. A deed of partnership was accordingly executed on 26th September, 1946, which was later substituted by a registered deed of partnership dated 22nd April, 1947 (registered on 17th May, 1947), executed by (i) Mohan Lal as karta of his joint family consisting of himself and his two minor sons then existing, i. e. , Bhola Nath and Gopalji, (ii) Ajodheya Prasad, son of Kishun Lal as karta of his joint family consisting of himself and his son, who were then minors and (iii) Lakshmi Prasad, son of Biri Lal. Jamuna Prasad, then a minor, was also admitted to the partnership. In paragraph 17 of the writ application the petitioner has stated : that on 18th December, 1947, the H. U. F. firm of Messrs. Doma Sao Kishun Lal, referred to above, had been assessed to sales tax under Sec.10 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944, by Shri D. Lakra, the then Sales Tax Officer, Patna Urban Circle, for six quarters ending 31st December, 1945, 31st March, 1946, 30th September, 1946, 31st December, 1946, and 31st March, 1947, respectively. The total amount of tax assessed for the six quarters amounted to Rs.9,036-4-0 as per details below. . . Reading these statements in the background of the facts of this case, it is clear that the Hindu undivided family firm, Doma Sao Kishun Lal, had a separate registration certificate granted by the Superintendent of Commercial Taxes, Patna Urban Circle, and that the ownership of that business, as stated in paragraph 9, was transferred to the partnership constituted in 1946. The assessment made by the Sales Tax Officer, Patna Urban Circle, by his order dated 18th December, 1947, was an assessment in respect of the Patna business only. As against the express statements in the writ application, learned Counsel for the petitioner could not place before us any material to show that the two businesses carried on by the Hindu undivided family, one at Patna and the other at Dinapore, were jointly assessed by the sales tax authorities. As against the express statements in the writ application, learned Counsel for the petitioner could not place before us any material to show that the two businesses carried on by the Hindu undivided family, one at Patna and the other at Dinapore, were jointly assessed by the sales tax authorities. Neither the original assessment order was produced nor the revised one. If it were to be held that the dues in question related to both the businesses, one at Patna and the other at Dinapore of the same Hindu undivided family, Doma Sao Kishun Lal, there would have been no difficulty in exonerating the petitioner from the payment of the tax dues in question, because the petitioner is not the transferee of the Dinapore business. It is the transferee of the Patna business only. But, then, on the statements made in the writ application, it is clear that the sales tax dues related to the Patna business, the ownership of which was entirely transferred from the Hindu undivided family firm to the first partnership-firm and, subsequently, from that partnership-firm to the petitioner-firm. Sec.17 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944, is not meant to stop at the first transfer. If it were to be so held, then the very purpose of imposing tax liability on the transferee would be frustrated. Subsequent transfers will be brought into existence to defeat the purpose of realisation of tax dues from the transferee, if Sec.17 were to be confined to the first transfer only. 12. Apart from the two points urged mainly on behalf of the petitioner, and which, I have already disposed of, learned Counsel for the petitioner endeavoured to attack the revised assessment order and the order of the Board of Revenue contained in annexure A1. I do not enter into the legality of these orders as they were not challenged in the writ petition and it is too late and not open to the petitioner to challenge them in argument. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on two decisions, namely, Jagadishchandra F. Modi V/s. Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Harbour Division II, Madras, and Ors. [1972] 29 S. T. C.144 and Ammonia Supply Corporation V/s. Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Rattan Bazaar Division, Madras [1972] 29 S. T. C.366. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on two decisions, namely, Jagadishchandra F. Modi V/s. Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Harbour Division II, Madras, and Ors. [1972] 29 S. T. C.144 and Ammonia Supply Corporation V/s. Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Rattan Bazaar Division, Madras [1972] 29 S. T. C.366. The former is not relevant at all as it concerns different kinds of provisions in respect of different points under the Income-tax Act as to the distribution of assets after dissolution of a partnership. The case of Ammonia Supply Corporation [1972] 29 S. T. C.366 is clearly distinguishable as there was no transfer of the ownership of the business in that case. Under Sec.27 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, liability was sought to be fastened on the petitioner before the High Court on the ground that there was sufficient identity between the first and the second firm, the partners were relations, the place of business was the same, the trading style was not disturbed and the business was also within the same campus. Such an argument without there being transfer of ownership could not be accepted and was not accepted by a learned Judge of the Madras High Court sitting singly. This case does not help the petitioner at all. 13. For the reasons stated above, this writ application fails and it is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs.150 only.