Firm demand notice served on one partner binds all partners where joint and several liability applies.

A demand notice addressed to a firm and served on one partner was sufficient to bind the firm and all partners where the firm was treated as a dealer under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939. Personal service on each partner was not required because the Act and rules imposed no such requirement, and partners were jointly and severally liable for the tax. Non-payment within the permitted time therefore attracted liability under Section 15(b) even though the petitioner had not been individually served.

---

---

Issues: Whether a demand notice served on one partner of a firm is sufficient to attract liability under Section 15(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 against another partner who was not personally served.

Analysis: The firm was treated as a dealer under the Act, and the notice addressed to the firm and served on one partner was held sufficient to bind the firm and the partners composing it. The absence of personal service on the petitioner was held not to be decisive, because no provision in the Act or the rules required individual service on each partner. Since partners were jointly and severally liable for payment of the tax, failure to pay within the time allowed attracted the penal consequence under Section 15(b).

Conclusion: The petitioner was liable under Section 15(b) despite not being personally served with the demand notice.

Final Conclusion: Service of the tax demand on one partner was sufficient to fasten liability on the other partner, and the revision failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a firm is treated as a dealer and the demand notice is duly served on one partner, the notice is effective against the firm and all partners who are jointly and severally liable, and personal service on each partner is not required to sustain liability for non-payment within the permitted time.

---