Business liability depends on actual control: admissions and assessment material defeated the claim of mere managerial status.

A claim that the petitioner was only a manager, and not the person actually carrying on the business, was rejected because the assessment material showed him operating the business, bank accounts and other dealings under several names. The alleged proprietorship of Sagar Singh was unsupported by reliable documents or affidavit, while the petitioner's own admissions about his presence at the premises and participation in proceedings reinforced the finding that he was conducting the business. The unrebutted assessment findings were treated as sufficient to fasten liability, and no relief under section 8 was found warranted; the assessment and demand were therefore upheld against him.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner had established that he was only a manager of the firm and not the person ly carrying on the business, so as to avoid liability arising from the assessment and demand.

Analysis: The material in the assessment order showed that the petitioner operated the business, bank accounts and other business dealings under several names, while the allegation that Sagar Singh was the proprietor remained unsupported by any reliable document or affidavit. The petitioner's own admissions about his presence at the business premises, participation in proceedings and failure to produce corroborative evidence strengthened the finding that the business was being carried on by him to evade tax. The Tribunal also held that the unrebutted findings in the assessment order sufficiently established his role in the business, and that no relief under section 8 of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995 was warranted.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not accepted as a mere manager, and the liability arising from the assessment and demand was upheld against him.

---