Assessment annulment depends on want of jurisdiction; failure to consider material facts requires rehearing and reconsideration.

Annulment of a tax assessment is confined to cases where the taxing authority lacks jurisdiction; where jurisdiction exists but material facts or further enquiry are needed, the proper course is to set aside the order and direct reconsideration. On the dealer's death, the assessments were not shown to be automatically void, because the dates of notice, death and the legal representative's liability had not been examined. The Tribunal also erred by deciding the second appeal without considering facts relevant to jurisdiction and validity. The matter therefore required rehearing and further enquiry, and the assessments were not finally annulled on the ground urged.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether, on the death of the dealer, the assessment proceedings were liable to be annulled rather than set aside; (ii) whether the Tribunal was justified in deciding the second appeal without considering the material facts relevant to the validity of the assessments.

Issue (i): Whether, on the death of the dealer, the assessment proceedings were liable to be annulled rather than set aside.

Analysis: Annulment is warranted only where the taxing authority lacks jurisdiction to assess. Where jurisdiction exists, an assessment may be set aside if an error requires further enquiry. The question depended on the dates of notice, death, and the statutory liability of the legal representative under the Act. Since those aspects were not examined, the case did not justify treating the assessments as automatically annulled.

Conclusion: The assessment proceedings were not shown to require annulment on the ground of the dealer's death.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal was justified in deciding the second appeal without considering the material facts relevant to the validity of the assessments.

Analysis: The relevant facts bearing on jurisdiction and on the validity of the assessments were not taken into account by the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal was therefore vitiated, and the proper course was rehearing of the second appeal with opportunity to both sides to place materials before the Tribunal, and, if necessary, for further enquiry.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was not correct in law in deciding the second appeal without considering the materials required to be given due weight.

Final Conclusion: The matter required reconsideration by the Tribunal, and the assessments were not finally annulled on the basis urged by the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Annulment of an assessment is confined to cases of want of jurisdiction, whereas an order passed without considering material facts relevant to jurisdiction or validity is liable to be set aside and reconsidered on rehearing.

---