Dissolved firm assessment by notice to one former partner upheld; no patent error arose from non-service on another partner.

Where a dissolved firm is deemed assessable as if dissolution had not occurred and the rules permit service of notice on any former partner, notice to one partner is sufficient for assessment and the absence of personal notice to another partner does not by itself create a patent error. Applying the scheme of section 15(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 and Rule 43(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957, the Court followed the larger Bench view in Raja Reddy Mallaram and held that the later smaller Bench decision in Sattler did not govern. The refusal to rectify the ex parte assessment was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessing authority was in refusing rectification of an ex parte assessment order on the ground that, after dissolution of the firm, service of notice on one partner was sufficient and the absence of personal notice to the other partner did not constitute a patent error.

Analysis: The assessment machinery under section 15(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 treats the dissolved firm as assessable as if dissolution had not taken place and makes the partners jointly and severally liable. Rule 43(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957 further permits service of notice on any partner who was a partner immediately before dissolution. The Court held that this scheme is materially similar to section 44 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as construed by the larger Bench decision in Raja Reddy Mallaram, which governed over the later smaller Bench view in Sattler. On that basis, service on one partner was held sufficient for assessment of the dissolved firm, and the alleged defect did not amount to a patent error warranting rectification under section 25-A.

Conclusion: The refusal to rectify the assessment was upheld and the challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute deems a dissolved firm assessable as if dissolution had not occurred and authorises service on any former partner, assessment based on notice to one partner is valid and non-service on another partner does not by itself create a rectifiable patent error.

---