Corporate dealer liability requires personal statutory status; proceedings against an individual shareholder were quashed, while sanction objections failed.

Liability under section 22(1)(a) of the Bengal Finance Sales Tax Act, 1941 requires the accused himself to answer the statutory description of a dealer carrying on business in contravention of the registration requirement; where the business is carried on by a company and the company is the registered dealer, proceedings lie against the company and not against an individual shareholder or participant. By contrast, a challenge under section 22(1)(g) based on absence of sanction under section 22(2) could not be accepted at the threshold on the materials before the Court, as the objection was not sufficiently established. The note thus distinguishes personal liability from corporate liability and rejects premature interference where sanction is not clearly shown to be lacking.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the proceedings under section 22(1)(a) of the Bengal Finance Sales Tax Act, 1941 could be quashed on the ground that the petitioner was not the dealer who carried on the business in question. (ii) Whether the proceedings under section 22(1)(g) of the Bengal Finance Sales Tax Act, 1941 could be quashed at the threshold on the ground that the necessary sanction under the Act had not been shown.

Issue (i): Whether the proceedings under section 22(1)(a) of the Bengal Finance Sales Tax Act, 1941 could be quashed on the ground that the petitioner was not the dealer who carried on the business in question.

Analysis: The offence under section 22(1)(a) depends on a person himself carrying on business as a dealer in contravention of section 7(1). The materials showed that the business was carried on in the name of a company, and the company was the registered dealer within the meaning of the Act. The petitioner's shareholding and participation in the business did not make him the dealer for the purpose of these provisions. If there was a contravention, proceedings lay against the company, not against him personally.

Conclusion: The proceedings under section 22(1)(a) were quashed in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the proceedings under section 22(1)(g) of the Bengal Finance Sales Tax Act, 1941 could be quashed at the threshold on the ground that the necessary sanction under the Act had not been shown.

Analysis: The objection based on absence of sanction under section 22(2) was not established on the materials before the Court. The point had not been raised in the application for the rule, and the record was insufficient for a conclusive finding that the prosecution was incompetent on that ground. In those circumstances, the Court declined to interfere at that stage.

Conclusion: The proceedings under section 22(1)(g) were not quashed and were allowed to continue.

Final Conclusion: The judgment granted relief only against the charge that the petitioner personally carried on business as a dealer, while leaving the prosecution for knowingly producing incorrect accounts or documents undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: For liability under the penal provision governing unregistered business activity, the accused must himself answer the statutory description of the dealer carrying on business in contravention of the registration requirement; where the business is that of a company, proceedings must be directed against the company unless the individual is shown to be the dealer in law.

---