Sales tax return validity depends on authorised signature; reconstitution of a firm does not defeat statutory penalty liability.

A quarterly sales tax return had to be filed in the prescribed manner by the dealer or a person sufficiently connected with the business; a return signed only by an advocate without express written authority was not valid, and payment by cheque did not cure that defect. The invalid return could not sustain penalty on the footing adopted by the authorities. On the separate objection, reconstitution of the firm after a partner's death did not defeat penalty liability because the statute treated such reconstitution as discontinuance for assessment and penalty purposes and preserved joint and several liability of the partners. The invalidity objection succeeded, while the reconstitution objection failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a quarterly sales tax return signed and filed by the assessee's advocate, without express written authority and not by a person integrally connected with the business, was a valid return under the Act and Rules; (ii) whether penalty could be sustained when the firm had been reconstituted after the death of a partner and the penalty proceedings were directed against the old firm.

Issue (i): whether a quarterly sales tax return signed and filed by the assessee's advocate, without express written authority and not by a person integrally connected with the business, was a valid return under the Act and Rules.

Analysis: The return provisions required the dealer to submit the return in the prescribed form, and the form contemplated signature by a person connected with the business and not by any person who merely acted as legal representative in assessment proceedings. The scheme of the Rules, read with the return form and contrasted with provisions allowing lawyers or authorised agents in appeals and revisions, showed that the legislature intended the return itself to be filed by the dealer or a person sufficiently connected with the business. Rule 77-A could not assist the assessee because there was no written authorisation on record and because the specific return provisions excluded a general agency theory. Payment by cheque did not cure the defect in signing and filing.

Conclusion: The first return signed by the advocate was not a valid return, and the answer to this issue was in favour of the Revenue on the point of validity but in the assessee's favour on the consequence that the invalid return could not sustain penalty.

Issue (ii): whether penalty could be sustained when the firm had been reconstituted after the death of a partner and the penalty proceedings were directed against the old firm.

Analysis: The provision dealing with liability of a dissolved or reconstituted firm treated reconstitution as a discontinuance of business for the limited purpose of assessment and penalty, and made the partners severally and jointly liable notwithstanding such reconstitution. On the finding that the proceedings were taken against the old surviving partners, the statutory scheme preserved liability and answered the objection based on reconstitution.

Conclusion: The objection based on reconstitution failed, and the penalty proceedings were not invalid on that ground.

Final Conclusion: The reference was substantially answered in favour of the assessee: the first return was invalid, the penalty could not stand on the footing adopted by the authorities, and the reconstitution objection did not defeat liability under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute and prescribed form require a dealer's return to be filed in a particular manner by a person connected with the business, a return signed only by an advocate without express written authority is not a valid return; and reconstitution of a firm does not avoid statutory penalty liability where the Act deems such reconstitution a discontinuance for purposes of assessment and penalty.

---