Fresh notice to legal representatives not required for assessment, but demand notice remained mandatory before recovery.

Where a deceased assessee had already been served in lifetime with notice to produce accounts and documents, the court held that section 7-C(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act did not require a fresh notice to the legal representatives for the same assessment purpose, so the assessment orders were sustained. It further held that service of a notice of demand under section 8 was a condition precedent to coercive recovery; as no such notice had been served on the legal representatives, the recovery proceedings and certificates were invalid and were quashed. The appeals therefore succeeded only in part.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessment orders were invalid for want of a fresh notice to the legal representatives of the deceased assessee under section 7-C(3) read with section 7(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act. (ii) Whether the recovery proceedings and certificates were invalid for want of a notice of demand under section 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act.

Issue (i): Whether the assessment orders were invalid for want of a fresh notice to the legal representatives of the deceased assessee under section 7-C(3) read with section 7(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act.

Analysis: The deceased assessee had already been served, during his lifetime, with notice requiring production of accounts and documents because the return was not accepted as correct and complete. Section 7-C(3) does not confer on the legal representatives a right to a second notice where the deceased himself had already been given the statutory opportunity that would have been available had he remained alive. The legal representatives were aware of the proceedings and had sought several adjournments. The provision requiring notice to the legal representative is therefore not attracted on these facts.

Conclusion: The assessment orders were valid and this issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the recovery proceedings and certificates were invalid for want of a notice of demand under section 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act.

Analysis: Under section 8, service of a notice of demand before recovery is a condition precedent to coercive recovery. Since no such notice had been served on the legal representatives, the recovery proceedings could not be sustained in law. The relied-upon analogy from the Income-tax Act did not displace this statutory requirement.

Conclusion: The recovery proceedings and certificates were invalid and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessment orders were sustained, but the recovery proceedings were quashed for want of a valid demand notice, so the appeals succeeded only in part.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the deceased assessee had already been served with the statutory notice requiring production of accounts and documents, section 7-C(3) does not require a ative notice to legal representatives for the same purpose; however, service of a notice of demand remains a condition precedent to recovery proceedings under section 8.

---