Dealer status and escaped-assessment notice fail where a business manager is not the taxable person and the dealer has died.

A manager of another's business was held not to be a "dealer" merely because he conducted sales for remuneration; the statutory explanation applied only where the principal was shown to reside outside the State, which was not established on the record. A notice for escaped assessment also had to be issued to the person legally liable to pay tax, namely the registered dealer; after that dealer's death, no valid notice could be directed against another person in respect of the same turnover absent statutory authority. The notices were therefore quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a person managing the business of another could be treated as a "dealer" within the meaning of the sales tax law merely on that basis or by reason of the statutory explanation. (ii) Whether a notice for escaped assessment could validly be issued against such person when the person liable to pay tax was the registered dealer and had died before the notice was issued.

Issue (i): Whether a person managing the business of another could be treated as a "dealer" within the meaning of the sales tax law merely on that basis or by reason of the statutory explanation.

Analysis: The definition of "dealer" was construed to mean a person carrying on his own business of selling goods. Mere management of another's business, even if it involves sale of goods and is carried on for remuneration, does not by itself amount to carrying on one's own business. The explanation extending the definition to a manager or agent applies only where the statutory condition about the principal residing outside the State is established. On the record, there was no material to show that the principal was resident outside the State at the relevant time.

Conclusion: The appellant was not a "dealer" within the meaning of the Act on the facts proved, and the contrary view was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether a notice for escaped assessment could validly be issued against such person when the person liable to pay tax was the registered dealer and had died before the notice was issued.

Analysis: The scheme of the Act linked the liability to pay tax and the power to issue a notice for escaped turnover to the dealer who was liable to pay the tax. Since the registered dealer was the person liable to pay tax, the notice under the escaped-assessment provision had to be directed against him. After his death, no such notice could be issued to another person in respect of that turnover in the absence of statutory authority.

Conclusion: The notice issued against the appellant was without authority and was invalid.

Final Conclusion: The notices were quashed and the appeal succeeded, leaving no basis to proceed against the appellant on those notices.

Ratio Decidendi: Under a taxing statute, a person can be subjected to assessment or escaped-assessment proceedings only if the statute clearly brings him within the defined class of taxable persons and authorises action against him; a manager of another's business is not a dealer merely by management, and the notice must be issued to the person who is legally liable to pay the tax.

---