KISHENCHAND TOLARAM Vs. A B GHANEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -

(2.) THIS is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Shelat in Miscellaneous Petition No. 232 of 1958. The relevant facts are as follows :- Prior to the 23rd of May, 1957, one Tolaram Assanmal, the father of the appellant, was carrying on business at Colaba, Bombay, in the name and style of Tolaram's. He died on the 23rd of May, 1957. It is common ground that even during the lifetime of his father, the appellant was managing the business of Tolaram's. On the 31st of October, 1953, the Sales Tax Officer, "A" Ward, Bombay, served a notice in Form XXXIV under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, on the appellant saying that he wished to satisfy himself that the returns filed by the firm in respect of the quarter ending 31st March, 1953, were correct and complete, and asked the firm to produce evidence in support of those returns. In compliance with the notice the appellant produced the required evidence. It would appear that subsequent to this the Sales Tax Officer, Enforcement Branch, seized certain account books belonging to the appellant. On 7th April, 1958, he passed an order of retention of those books for the purpose of verification. On the 12th of March, 1958, the Sales Tax Officer issued a notice in Form XIV to the appellant under section 15 of the Sales Tax Act. The notice stated as follows :- "Whereas I am satisfied that your turnover in respect of the sales amounting to Rs. 1,00,000 for the period from 1st November, 1952 to 31st March, 1953, has escaped assessment for general tax, you are hereby directed to attend in person or by a legal practitioner or by an agent authorised in writing at the above address at 11 a.m. on 31st March, 1958, and to show cause ....... etc."

(3.) WE would like to point out at the outset that the learned Advocate-General who appears for the Sales Tax Officer frankly stated that the view taken by the learned Judge that the appellant cannot be said to be a "dealer" merely because he had succeeded to the interest of his father after the demise of his father is correct and that the Sales Tax Officer was not entitled to issue a notice against him only upon the ground that he had succeeded to his father's interest in the firm of M/s. Tolaram's after his death. In view of this concession we need not say anything whatsoever on this point.