STATE OF MADRAS Vs. K A VALLIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAMANUJAM, J. One K. M. Abbu Chettiar, a manufacturer and dealer in groundnut oil, gingerly oil and oil-cake, died on 11th July, 1963. Even before his death, he had been assessed under section 12 of the Madras General Sales tax Act, 1959, for the years 1959-60, 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63.

(2.) BUT subsequent to his death, there was an inspection of his residential house and in the course of such inspection, certain anamath account books relating to his business were traced. On the basis of the entries in the said accounts, the assessing authority proposed to revise the original assessments made for the years 1959-60 to 1962-63 under section 16 (1) of the Act. Based on the said anamath account books, the assessing authority proceeded to make the original assessment for the year 1963-64 under section 12. At that stage, the assessing authority issued summons in the name of K. M. Abbu Chettiar for the production of the account books. That summons was received by one Kuppuswamy, said to be an employee of Abbu Chettiar while he was alive and who later continued in the employ of the legal representatives in the management of the business of the deceased. The said Kuppuswamy appeared before the assessing authority on an authorisation given by the legal representatives in form No. XIII and produced the account books. After a perusal of the account books produced by him, the assessing authority issued notices proposing reassessments for the years 1959-60 to 1962-63 and a notice proposing to make an assessment on the best judgment basis for the year 1963-64 on the basis of the anamath account books recovered from the residence of Abbu Chettiar. Even these notices were issued in the name of K. M. Abbu Chettiar and served on the said Kuppuswamy. In pursuance of the above notices, Kuppuswamy filed objections to the proposed assessment and reassessment for and on behalf of Abbu Chettiar. Thereafter, the assessing authority passed the assessment and reassessment orders, as the case may be, in respect of the assessment years 1959-60 to 1962-63, in the name of the deceased abbu Chettiar.

(3.) A similar case arose in Gopalkishan v. Sales Tax Officer. In that case, a dealer died in 1965. A notice in the name of the deceased was served on his sons in response to which, the sons, their accountant and their advocate appeared before the assessing authority. After hearing their objections, the assessment was completed in the name of the deceased dealer. The question was whether such an assessment was valid, in view of the provisions of section 33-B of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax 4ct, 1958, which corresponds to section 15 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. The court held that in view of the said section 33-B of that Act, the legal representative shall be deemed to be the dealer for the purpose of the Act and that, therefore, the legal representative is the person to be proceeded against as a dealer. The court expressed the view that not only notice should be issued to the legal representative but the assessment order also must necessarily be passed against him. In State of Madras v. M. Rangarajan though the question which came up for consideration was different, the following observations made in that case as to the scope of section 15 are apposite : "section 15 directs that when a dealer dies his legal representative shall be deemed to be a dealer for the purposes of the act. In view of this deeming provision, one cannot boggle with one's imagination and notwithstanding the deeming, revert to putative state of affairs and imagine an assessment on a legal representative as such. For purposes of the Act, a legal representative of a deceased should be taken as a dealer and it will be so for purposes of section 12 (3 ). All the provisions of the Act will apply to the deemed dealer in respect of the business of the deceased dealer. Section 15 further provides that in respect of any tax or fee assessed as payable by such dealer or any tax or fee which would have been payable by him under the Act if he had not died, the executor, administrator or other legal representative shall be liable to the extent of the assets of the deceased in his hands."