Sales tax liability requires legal partnership status; mere management of the firm does not make a person criminally liable.

Liability for sales tax default under section 15(b) attached only to a person who was a partner in law. Mere management of the firm's business on behalf of a real partner did not create a separate status of "de facto partner" under the sales tax law or the Partnership Act, so criminal liability could not be fastened on that basis. The first accused was therefore not treated as a partner, and the conviction and sentence were set aside, with the petitioners acquitted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the first accused could be treated as a partner of the firm and held liable for non-payment of sales tax under section 15(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act.

Analysis: The firm had been assessed to sales tax, but the first accused was shown only to have managed the business on behalf of his father, who was the real partner. Mere management of partnership affairs does not make a person a partner in law, and the Act and the Partnership Act do not recognize a separate category of "de facto partner" for fastening liability. The reasoning that the accused could be punished because he ated the business despite not being a partner was found unsustainable.

Conclusion: The first accused was not a partner and could not be convicted on that basis; the conviction and sentence were set aside and the petitioners were acquitted.

Final Conclusion: Liability for sales tax default could not be imposed on a person merely because he managed the firm's affairs without being a legally recognized partner.

Ratio Decidendi: Partnership liability under the sales tax law attaches to persons who are partners in law, and mere management of a firm's business does not make an individual a partner or render him criminally liable for the firm's tax default.

---