Subsisting partnership is the taxable dealer; individual partner cannot be assessed on the firm's turnover.

A subsisting partnership that carried on the business during the relevant assessment year had to be treated as the taxable dealer, so assessment on an individual partner was not sustainable. The partnership deed and dissolution memorandum showed that the firm continued until dissolution, and the contract was entered into in the firm's name during that period. The court also held that the dealer definition and partnership rules did not authorise individual assessment of a partner for the firm's turnover; the distinction between assessment and recovery did not alter that result. The firm remained liable for the tax, and the revision failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the business for the assessment year was carried on by a subsisting partnership so that the assessment could not be made on the individual partner. (ii) Whether the statutory definition of dealer and the rules governing partnership made the partner jointly and severally liable for payment of the tax assessed on the firm.

Issue (i): Whether the business for the assessment year was carried on by a subsisting partnership so that the assessment could not be made on the individual partner.

Analysis: The partnership deed and the dissolution memorandum showed that the partnership existed during the relevant assessment year and continued until its dissolution. The railway contract was entered into in the name of the firm during the subsistence of the partnership. The later dissolution deed was treated as clear and effective, and the absence of a fresh renewal document did not negative the continuance of the partnership by mutual agreement.

Conclusion: The partnership was subsisting during the relevant period, and the assessment ought to have been made on the firm.

Issue (ii): Whether the statutory definition of dealer and the rules governing partnership made the partner jointly and severally liable for payment of the tax assessed on the firm.

Analysis: The definition of dealer, read with the charging provision, showed that the firm itself was treated as the taxable dealer. The rule concerning partnership was construed as applying to a subsequent partnership and not as authorising assessment of an individual partner for a firm's liability in the circumstances of this case. The distinction between assessment and recovery was recognised, but the rule did not support proceeding against the respondent individually.

Conclusion: The partner was not liable to be assessed individually on the firm's turnover, and the tax liability had to be fastened on the firm.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed, and the Tribunal's view that the assessment was properly attributable to the partnership was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a business is carried on by a subsisting partnership, the firm is the taxable dealer under the charging scheme, and an individual partner cannot be assessed on the firm's turnover merely because partnership rules impose joint and several responsibility for tax payment.

---