Sales tax assessments, partner authority, and recovery proceedings upheld where notice, agency, and surviving liability were established.

Registered dealers remain liable where notices were issued, appearances were made, adjournments were sought, and assessments were completed only after failure to produce books of account; the assessments were found within time and not open to direct challenge before the Tribunal without exhausting statutory remedies. A partner's authority under the partnership deed and general agency principles bound the firm, so counsel appointed through that partner was validly authorised. Certificate proceedings did not become void on the death of one certificate-debtor, as they continued against the surviving partners and any grievance had to be pursued under the recovery statute.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the ex parte sales tax assessments were invalid for want of notice, were barred by limitation, or could be challenged directly before the Tribunal without exhausting statutory remedies; (ii) whether the partnership firm was bound by the appearance and action of an authorised advocate appointed by one partner; (iii) whether the certificate proceedings became void on the death of one of the certificate-debtors.

Issue (i): Whether the ex parte sales tax assessments were invalid for want of notice, were barred by limitation, or could be challenged directly before the Tribunal without exhausting statutory remedies.

Analysis: Registered dealers were required to furnish quarterly returns and pay tax under the sales tax statute and the rules. The record showed that notices were issued, appearances were made, repeated adjournments were sought, and assessments were ultimately completed only after the applicants failed to produce books of account. The assessments were made within the prescribed period and were not time-barred. The Tribunal also held that the applicants had not exhausted the remedies available under the relevant statute and could not, in this proceeding, question the merits of the best judgment assessments for the first time.

Conclusion: The assessments were held to be valid, duly noticed, and not barred by limitation, and the challenge on this ground failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the partnership firm was bound by the appearance and action of an authorised advocate appointed by one partner.

Analysis: The general authority of a partner as agent of the firm was recognised under the partnership law. On the terms of the partnership deed, the authority of a partner was not restricted but affirmed. Accordingly, the partner who signed the vakalatnama could validly appoint counsel for the firm, and the firm and all partners were bound by that act.

Conclusion: The objection to the advocate's authority was rejected and the firm was bound by the appearance made on its behalf.

Issue (iii): Whether the certificate proceedings became void on the death of one of the certificate-debtors.

Analysis: The certificate proceedings were initiated against the partners carrying on business under the firm name. The death of one certificate-debtor did not extinguish the certificate or invalidate the proceedings against the surviving partners. The proper course was for the Certificate Officer to take steps under the recovery law as required, and any grievance against such action had to be pursued in the forum provided by that statute.

Conclusion: The certificate proceedings remained valid and enforceable against the surviving partners; this challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: No ground for interference was made out, and the Tribunal declined to disturb either the assessments or the recovery proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A registered dealer cannot avoid sales tax liability by denying notice where the record shows service and participation, and where statutory remedies remain unexhausted the Tribunal will not reopen best judgment assessments or invalidate recovery proceedings that continue against surviving partners.

---