TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether an assessment under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act could be sustained where the business was carried on by an association of persons including a minor through his guardian; (ii) whether the appeals against the reassessment orders were barred by limitation on the basis that demand notices and copies of the orders had been served on one of the members.
Issue (i): whether an assessment under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act could be sustained where the business was carried on by an association of persons including a minor through his guardian.
Analysis: The definition of dealer under section 2(c) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was wide enough to include an association of persons. The business was found to have been carried on in the name of the concern, and the record did not show that the assessment was necessarily against a partnership firm in the strict sense. A minor could be a member of an association of persons through his guardian, and the assessment could validly be made on such association.
Conclusion: The assessment was valid, and liability could be recovered from the members of the association.
Issue (ii): whether the appeals against the reassessment orders were barred by limitation on the basis that demand notices and copies of the orders had been served on one of the members.
Analysis: The appellate authority and the revisional authority recorded a finding of fact that demand notices and copies of the assessment orders had been served on Jaipal on 19 December 1974. That finding, affirmed by the last fact-finding authority, could not be reopened in writ proceedings. On that basis, the appeals filed later were beyond time.
Conclusion: The appeals were rightly held to be time-barred.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the reassessment and the dismissal of the appeals failed, and the writ petition was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: An association of persons that carries on business may be assessed as a dealer under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, and service of the demand notice on one member of the association can constitute sufficient service for limitation purposes where the finding of service is one of fact.
TaxTMI 
