JUDGMENT V. V. KAMAT, J. It is really rare that the writ court gets concerned with the situational anomalies. The present petition requires this Court to consider for consequences in the matter of exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India, its own peculiarities presented by the factual matrix. 2. Ostensibly the question is as regards the liability of the partners in their individual capacity to payment of tax which is due to be recovered as to be paid by the partnership firm. There is no dispute that under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, there is no provision making the partner of a partnership firm individually liable to payment of tax due to the partnership firm. This is with reference to the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. However, as regards the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, it contains a provision in section 21 providing that where any firm is liable to pay tax, fee or other amount under the Act, the firm or each of the partners shall be jointly and severally liable for such payment. The question is as to whether there can be a legitimate resort to the said provision of section 21 of the State Act in the matter of recovery of sales tax which is clearly and purely a liability under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 3. The partnership in question is M/s. A. Pareed Pillai & Brothers. It had three brothers as partners, namely, A. Pareed Pillai, A. Mohammed Pillai and A. Khader Pillai. For the assessment years 1958-59 up to 1962-63 the firm was doing business in coconut oil, predominantly by way of inter-State sales and therefore assessable to the tax under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The tax liability of the firm was assessed. The assessment was both under the State Act which was then the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the Central Act. There is no dispute that the partnership firm was the registered dealer and the assessment liabilities under the then State Act was Rs. 1,124.29 on the one hand and under the Central Sales Tax Act it was Rs. 12,71,591.21. There was one additional liability of Rs. 1,680 due to the firm under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Tax Act. There is no dispute that the partnership firm was the registered dealer and the assessment liabilities under the then State Act was Rs. 1,124.29 on the one hand and under the Central Sales Tax Act it was Rs. 12,71,591.21. There was one additional liability of Rs. 1,680 due to the firm under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Tax Act. There is also no dispute that these amounts were in arrears as due from the partnership firm in 1963. 4. Under the Revenue Recovery Act the authority (respondent No. 2) issued the necessary certificate and on the strength of the said certificate the specified share of the partners came under attachment as the share in the properties left by their father. There was an unsuccessful attempt to save the property at the hands of the mother of these three brothers on the basis of an alleged oral gift deed. The suit came to be dismissed. The appeal also followed the same result and naturally the matter came up to this Court in S.A. No. 756 of 1984. There is no dispute that the suit, appeal and the second appeal were initiated by one of the brothers - Pareed Pillai, after the unsuccessful attempt of the mother. 5. It is after the decision of the second appeal in this Court by the judgment dated June 26, 1990 [Reported as State of Kerala v. Pareed Pillai [1991] 83 STC 377 (Ker)], a sale notice was issued by respondent No. 3 on August 9, 1991. The said sale notice was served not only on the elder brother, but also on the present petitioner who is younger to him, giving rise to the two petitions, being O.P. No. 9516 of 1991 and the present petition (O.P. No. 9519 of 1991). 6. By my judgment dated October 20, 1995, O.P. No. 9516 of 1991 was dismissed and in the process of reasoning, I have held that the judgment of this Court in S.A. No. 756 of 1984 [State of Kerala v. Pareed Pillai [1991] 83 STC 377 (Ker)] received finality in regard to the conclusions recorded therein. In the process the fact that special leave petition against the said judgment came to be dismissed is stated to be the culmination in the process of finding to the question. 7. In the process the fact that special leave petition against the said judgment came to be dismissed is stated to be the culmination in the process of finding to the question. 7. In reaching the above conclusion reliance is placed on the observations of this Court in paragraph 40 of the said judgment which are recorded therein and which are to the following effect : "On a proper interpretation of the effect of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125 and the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1953, it has to be declared that a liability of a firm which had arisen under 1125 Act could be recovered after 1963 enactment by proceeding against the firm as also any one of its partners. It is so declared. That declaration would lead to the dismissal of the suit and rejection of the plaintiff's contentions. On this ground as well, the decision of the appellate court has therefore to be reversed, it being vitiated by non-advertence to, and non-application of, the well-settled principles of law." 8. The present petitioner was not a party to the proceedings of the said suit and therefore the present petition was separated for being dealt with independently. 9. Even in this petition in paragraph 6 it is averred that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 did not take any further steps in furtherance or continuance of the sale notice, petitioner's brother Mohammed Pillai (the third brother) filed O.S. No. 485 of 1984 against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for an injunction which is decreed by the trial court and is regard to which the appeal of the respondents, being Appeal No. 181 of 1987 is pending on the file of the Sub-Court, Parur. However, as a result of the decision of the second appeal, in view of the sale notice dated August 9, 1991, the present petition is filed, to contend that the recovery sought to be in initiated is not possible in law in view of the fact that there cannot be any justifiable resort to section 21 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, in the matter of recovery by the State authorities (respondents Nos. 1 and 2) under the provisions of section 9 of the General Sales Tax Act, 1956. 10. 1 and 2) under the provisions of section 9 of the General Sales Tax Act, 1956. 10. As stated at the outset, the very narration of facts would show that one of the brothers - Pareed Pillai reached the situation of finality as stated above and as held by me in the decision in O.P. No. 9516 of 1991. 11. As far as this petition is concerned, it would be seen that the present petitioner would have to be understood as travelling in the same boat as it would be seen from exhibit P2 that he had also given a statutory notice under section 80 (Civil Procedure Code) of a prospective suit, except that he had not actually filed a suit on the basis thereof. Apart therefrom, it will have to be also appreciated that there would be no dispute that the three brothers are the partners of one and the same partnership firm. As stated at the outset, in the above situation, factual anomalies also will have a hearing in the exercise of powers under article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. Apart therefrom, independently the question would require consideration in the light of submissions made by the learned counsel. The learned counsel submitted that there is no dispute that the assessment was under the then Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act, 1956, as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The learned counsel submitted that the assessment under the enactments will have to be understood as the "assessment of a dealer" and in this case there is no dispute that the dealer is the partnership firm. The learned counsel also submitted that there is no dispute that in the matter of assessment of a dealer, partners of a partnership firm could never be understood to assume the status of a dealer in the process of taxation. As stated at the outset, even today as far as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, is concerned, there is no dispute that there is no provision analogous to the provisions of section 21 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The learned counsel emphasises that what is sought to be recovered is the liability under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, being the liability of the partnership firm which is being sought to be recovered from the partners by resort to the provisions of the State Act. 13. The learned counsel emphasises that what is sought to be recovered is the liability under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, being the liability of the partnership firm which is being sought to be recovered from the partners by resort to the provisions of the State Act. 13. In this context the learned counsel urged that the right, title, obligation or liability under the provisions of the tax law then existing get a safeguard by virtue of the provisions of section 61 of the State Act, by reason of the deeming provision in the matters dealing with the provisions of repeal under section 61 of the Act. In other words, the learned counsel urges that if under the existing law dealing with the question of liability, the partners cannot be made liable, and additionally even under the existing law relating to the liability - the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, there is no provision for making the partner liable, in the matter of recovery resort to section 21 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, would be utterly unjustifiable in law. 14. The learned counsel submitted that in the matter of taxation, what is relevant is the law relating to the liability during the period of assessment. In fact even the situation of law during the time of assessment in question does not empower enhancement of assessment at any future time thereafter. 15. In this context submissions are made relating to the provisions of section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, relating to levy and collection of tax and penalties referable to the liability under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 16. To appreciate the submission reference to the provisions of section 9 would be necessary in the context. The provision enacts that the tax payable by any dealer under this Act shall be levied by the Government of India and the tax so levied shall be collected by that Government in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 9 in the State from which the movement of goods commenced. In other words, the liability under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, is dealt with in the matter of collection and handed over for collection to the concerned Government in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 9 of the Central Act, 1956. 17. In other words, the liability under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, is dealt with in the matter of collection and handed over for collection to the concerned Government in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 9 of the Central Act, 1956. 17. In the matter of collection it is provided that the authorities empowered to assess, reassess, collect and enforce payment of any tax under the General sales tax law of the appropriate State shall, on behalf of the Government of India, assess, reassess, collect and enforce payment of tax, including any penalty payable by a dealer under this Act, as if the tax or penalty payable by such dealer under this Act is a tax or penalty payable under the general sales tax law of the State. In other words, the provisions specify that what is to be recovered as the liability under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, is to be recovered by the appropriate State authority on behalf of the Government of India, as if the authorities of the State are dealing with the concerned action with regard to a dealer by resorting to the provisions of the general sales tax law of the State in question. In other words, reading the above provision it would have to be understood that the tax authorities will deal with the matter relating to the action required by resort to the provisions of the State law as if the authorities are dealing with the dealer under the General sales tax law of the State. 18. In the context it is necessary to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. K. A. Ramudu Chettiar & Co. [1973] 31 STC 470 relied upon in the matter of application of section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, to a situation where the appellate authority enhanced the amount of tax, which according to the Supreme Court could not be done because the assessing authority could act according to the sales tax law in force during the relevant assessment year. The assessee was a registered dealer and the year in question was the year 1960-61. The matter was relating to five transactions which were inter-State sales as against remaining three intra-State sales. The assessee was a registered dealer and the year in question was the year 1960-61. The matter was relating to five transactions which were inter-State sales as against remaining three intra-State sales. The Sales Tax Officer held two out of five transactions as inter-State sales and the matter went up in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who held that all the five transactions were inter-State sales. However, the appellate authority rejected the contention of the assessee that the assessee was entitled to exemption and in the process enhanced the tax levied on the three transactions on the ground that the assessee had failed to produce the required "C" certificates. It is in this context the contentions were taken up for examination. It is observed in the context that the position was beyond dispute that the appellate authority could not enhance acting under the appellate powers because no such powers were available udder the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, for the purpose of dealing with the question of powers of the appellate authority. In other words, the power in question was not available in the State statute and the question was the question of assessment in question. Therefore in regard to the question of assessment, there being no power for enhancing the tax at the appellate stage, this was held to be impermissible by reason of the absence of such power. At any rate what was required to be considered and was considered was about the powers under section 9(2) to be embracing of the powers that the assessing authority had under the sales tax law of the State in force during the relevant assessment year. 19. The learned counsel, basing his submissions on the basis of the reasoning in the above context, urged that the assessment years in question being 1957-58 up to 1962-63, additionally being governed by the then State Act - the Travancore-Cohin General Sales Tax Act, there was no question of resort to section 21 of the 1963 Act which was not in force during the assessment years. 20. In fact, the powers under section 9(2), as I have seen hereinbefore, are powers to be exercised by the State authorities in accordance with the law of the State, as if exercising on behalf of the Government of India. 20. In fact, the powers under section 9(2), as I have seen hereinbefore, are powers to be exercised by the State authorities in accordance with the law of the State, as if exercising on behalf of the Government of India. If the provisions of section 9(2) are taken into consideration, the powers will have to be understood in terms of functions in the matter of assessment, in the matter of reassessment, in the matter of collection, in the matter of enforcement of payment, in the matter of imposition of penalty and recovery thereof to be made by the appropriate State authority on behalf of the Government of India as if the tax or penalty is under the State Act being the General sales tax law of the State. The power of the State authority will have to be considered in relation to the function in the context. The function in the context is the recovery of the liability which is already determined and finalised. Although there is no dispute that the liability is under the Central Sales Tax Act, by virtue of the provision of sub-section (2) of section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, in the matter of recovery, it is being dealt with by the State authority and it is made further clear that the recovery by the State authority is to be done as if it is in regard to a dealer in accordance with the General sales tax law of the State in question. In my judgment the authority will have to be understood in the context of its function. If a particular function relates to the assessment/reassessment, the law at that time would govern the situation. But if the matter requires consideration years thereafter in the matter of recovery, a plain reading of the section would have to be appreciated in regard to the function of the State authority under the Sales Tax Act as co-relative with function in the process of administration of a local provision. In my judgment the observations of the Supreme Court would have to be appreciated in the context of the situation and the context of the situation is the question as to whether the appellate authority could have enhanced the tax in regard to which the provision was absent with regard to the process of assessment. In my judgment the observations of the Supreme Court would have to be appreciated in the context of the situation and the context of the situation is the question as to whether the appellate authority could have enhanced the tax in regard to which the provision was absent with regard to the process of assessment. As against the said position in the matter of recovery which is undertaken years thereafter, the law relating to the recovery will have to be considered for application by the State authorities under the general sales tax law of the State. 21. Therefore, apart from the present petitioner having sailed in the same boat as that of the petitioner in O.P. No. 9516 of 1991, it cannot be said that resort to the provisions of section 21 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act would not be available in the matter of recovery of the tax due to the partnership firm from partners as discussed above. 22. Lastly, it stares in the face of the record that undisputed arrears of years 1957-58 up to 1962-63 initiated on the basis of recovery process commenced in 1978 with sale notice of 1991 are still at square No. 1, an aspect which also has bearing on the exercise of exceptional powers. For all the above reasons the petition stands dismissed leaving the parties to suffer their costs. Petition dismissed.