1972 (10) TMI 113 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Validity of assessment orders made against a deceased dealer without serving pre-assessment notices on legal representatives and assessing a dead person.

Analysis:
The case involves the assessment of a deceased dealer under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, where the assessing authority proposed to revise original assessments based on newly discovered account books. The legal representatives challenged the assessments, arguing that the orders were invalid as pre-assessment notices were not served on them and assessments were made on a deceased person. The appellate authority upheld the assessments without detailed consideration of their validity. The Tribunal held the assessment orders invalid on grounds of lack of notice to legal representatives and assessments on a dead person. The revenue challenged this decision.

The revenue contended that as the deceased's business was continued by family members under the trade name, assessments on the trade name should be valid. However, it was noted that this argument was not raised earlier. The Tribunal and departmental authorities proceeded on the basis of assessments being made on the deceased dealer. Section 15 of the Act states that legal representatives are deemed to be dealers upon the dealer's death. Despite communications of the dealer's death, assessments were made against the deceased dealer. Citing a similar case, the court emphasized that assessments should be made against legal representatives as per the Act.

Referring to State of Madras v. M. Rangarajan, the court reiterated that legal representatives are deemed dealers under the Act, and all provisions apply to them. Assessments against deceased dealers are not valid under section 15. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision to set aside the assessment orders on this ground. The court dismissed the tax cases, emphasizing that assessments against deceased dealers cannot be upheld as valid under section 15, making it unnecessary to consider the lack of notice to legal representatives. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs.