Firm not a "dealer" under Bengal sales tax law; partners remained assessable despite dissolution.

A firm was held outside the definition of "dealer" under section 2(c) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 after the 1950 amendment deleted the word "firm"; the extended meaning of "person" under the General Clauses Act could not be applied where it conflicted with the taxing statute's context. A dissolved partnership-firm, as such, could not be assessed to sales tax under the Act, but the notices could validly proceed against the individual partners as dealers. The statutory scheme therefore did not recognise the firm as a taxable entity, while preserving jurisdiction over the partners.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a firm is included within the definition of "dealer" under section 2(c) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. (ii) Whether a dissolved firm can be assessed to sales tax under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.

Issue (i): Whether a firm is included within the definition of "dealer" under section 2(c) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.

Analysis: The definition in section 2(c) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 covers a person carrying on the business of selling goods in West Bengal and includes the Government. After the amendment made by section 2(b) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1950, the word "firm" was deleted from the definition. The extended meaning of "person" under the General Clauses Act could not be invoked because that extension would be repugnant to the subject and context of the taxing provision.

Conclusion: A firm is not included within the definition of "dealer" under section 2(c) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.

Issue (ii): Whether a dissolved firm can be assessed to sales tax under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.

Analysis: The principle that a dissolved firm cannot be assessed as a legal entity, in the absence of express statutory provision, was distinguished because the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 does not treat a firm as a dealer. Since the firm itself was not a taxable entity under the Act, dissolution of the partnership did not affect the jurisdiction to proceed against the individual partners as dealers.

Conclusion: A dissolved partnership-firm, as such, could not be assessed under the Act, but the impugned notices were valid against the partners as dealers.

Final Conclusion: The statutory scheme did not recognize the firm as a dealer, and the taxing authority acted within jurisdiction in proceeding against the partners. The application was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the legislature has expressly omitted "firm" from the definition of "dealer," the general extended meaning of "person" cannot be applied if it is repugnant to the statutory context.

---