Deceased dealer assessments upheld where legal heirs continued business without disclosure, and injunction period was excluded from limitation.

Where the legal representatives of a deceased registered dealer continue the business without disclosing the death or securing amendment of registration, statutory notices and assessment orders issued in the deceased dealer's name are not invalid merely on that account. A period covered by an operative injunction restraining assessment proceedings is excludable for limitation purposes, so later assessments made within the extended time are not time-barred. The absence of a separate hearing notice to the successors does not vitiate the assessments where the death was not disclosed to the authority. Best judgment assessments founded on the dealer's past records were upheld as having adequate basis and material.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether assessment notices and assessment orders issued in the name of a deceased registered dealer were a nullity; (ii) whether the assessments were barred by limitation in view of the earlier injunction and the statutory exclusion of time; (iii) whether denial of hearing vitiated the assessments; and (iv) whether the best judgment assessments were basis and material.

Issue (i): Whether assessment notices and assessment orders issued in the name of a deceased registered dealer were a nullity.

Analysis: The majority held that the legal representatives continued the same business and had not informed the death of the dealer, sought amendment of the registration, or filed returns as required by the Act. In that setting, the deeming provisions governing death and transfer of business were treated as extending the legal personality of the deceased dealer to the successors for purposes of assessment. The notices served in the deceased dealer's name were therefore not treated as invalid merely because the death had not been disclosed to the authority.

Conclusion: The notices and assessment orders were not a nullity and were valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessments were barred by limitation in view of the earlier injunction and the statutory exclusion of time.

Analysis: The majority construed the earlier injunction order as restraining the authority from proceeding with both pending and future assessments in relation to the challenge then pending. The period during which that restraint operated was held excludable under the limitation provision, and the later assessments were found to have been made within the extended time.

Conclusion: The assessments were not barred by limitation.

Issue (iii): Whether denial of hearing vitiated the assessments.

Analysis: The majority held that the statutory duty to disclose the dealer's death and seek amendment of registration had not been complied with by the applicants, and the authority had been kept uninformed. In those circumstances, the absence of a separate hearing notice to the legal representatives did not vitiate the proceedings.

Conclusion: The assessments were not invalid for want of hearing.

Issue (iv): Whether the best judgment assessments were without basis and material.

Analysis: The majority held that the assessments were founded on the dealer's past records and could not be characterised as arbitrary or whimsical on that basis.

Conclusion: The best judgment assessments were not unsustainable for want of basis or material.

Final Conclusion: The majority upheld the impugned assessments and the connected notices, while the dissent would have set them aside and permitted fresh assessments after fresh notice.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the legal representatives of a deceased registered dealer continue the business without disclosing the death or obtaining amendment of registration, statutory notices issued in the deceased dealer's name and assessments made after exclusion of a period covered by an operative restraint are not invalid merely for want of notice in the successors' names.

---