Assessment order against deceased deemed void; sons lack standing to challenge. Importance of proper notice stressed.

The court held that the assessment order issued against a deceased person was void and liable to be quashed. The petitioners, sons of the deceased, lacked standing to challenge the order as it was not directed at them. The court emphasized that notices and orders must be correctly issued to legal representatives. The court dismissed the petition, ruling the order as a nullity and non-binding on the petitioners. Respondents were directed to pay costs and refund the security deposit, addressing the petitioners' concerns.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the assessment order issued against a deceased person.
2. Legal standing of the petitioners to challenge the assessment order.
3. Applicability of Section 33-B of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958.
4. Interpretation of notices and assessment orders issued under the Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the assessment order issued against a deceased person:
The court addressed the issue of the validity of an assessment order issued against Bhimsen Sachdeva, who had passed away before the notice was served. The court noted that the proceedings were initiated against "Bhimsen Sachdeva" and the notice was also issued in his name. The assessment order and demand notice were similarly directed at Bhimsen Sachdeva, not at his legal representatives. The court held, "the assessment order made against a dead person was, on the face of it, void and was liable to be quashed." It was emphasized that the assessment against a deceased individual is a nullity.

2. Legal standing of the petitioners to challenge the assessment order:
The petitioners, who are the sons of Bhimsen Sachdeva, protested against the service of the notice and the subsequent proceedings. The court observed that the petitioners had no right to appeal against an order not made against them. However, they filed the petition due to apprehensions of coercive action. The court ultimately concluded, "the impugned order is not binding on the petitioners and is a nullity," implying that the petitioners were not adversely affected by the order, thus questioning their locus standi.

3. Applicability of Section 33-B of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958:
Section 33-B of the Act was discussed, which states that upon the death of a dealer, his legal representative shall be deemed to be the dealer for the purposes of the Act. The court clarified that the legal representative must be proceeded against as a dealer, and the notices and assessment orders must be issued to them. The court stated, "the deeming provision in section 33-B cannot be relied upon for holding that though the notices are issued in the name of a dead person and the assessment is also made against a dead person, the assessment shall be deemed to be the assessment of the legal representatives."

4. Interpretation of notices and assessment orders issued under the Act:
The court examined the notices and assessment orders issued under the Act. It was highlighted that the notices were incorrectly issued in the name of the deceased Bhimsen Sachdeva. The court referenced the case of Sk. Abdul Kadar v. Income-tax Officer, stating, "The notice under section 34 is the foundation of jurisdiction, and that notice has to be correct. When a notice is issued to a dead person, the taxing authority cannot catch any living person into whose hands the notice goes and attribute notice to him." The court found that the first respondent continued the proceedings despite the petitioners' protests and issued the assessment order in the name of the deceased, rendering the order invalid.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, stating that the impugned order was a nullity and not binding on the petitioners. However, the court directed the respondents to pay the costs of the petitioners and refund the outstanding amount of the security deposit. The petitioners' apprehensions were addressed by the court's finding that the order was void and not enforceable against them.

---