Non-impleadment in sales tax revision against a dissolved firm was not fatal where reasonable hearing was ensured before disposal.

In a sales tax revision against a dissolved firm, non-impleadment of the ex-partners was not fatal because the statute required only that the dealer and the Commissioner or authorised officer be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing before disposal. The revision form then in force also did not require naming the opposite party, so the omission of the partners' names did not invalidate the proceeding. On that basis, notice could be given through counsel at any stage before final disposal, and the objection to maintainability failed. The request to insist on amendment to add the ex-partners' names was therefore unnecessary, and the procedural omission did not defeat the revision.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a revision against a dissolved firm was vitiated for want of impleadment of the ex-partners and whether notice through counsel was sufficient; (ii) whether the revision application could be amended to add the names of the ex-partners.

Issue (i): Whether a revision against a dissolved firm was vitiated for want of impleadment of the ex-partners and whether notice through counsel was sufficient.

Analysis: Under section 14 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, the revision power was exercisable on being moved by the authorised officer, and section 14(6) required only that the dealer and the Commissioner or authorised officer be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing before an order was made. The prescribed revision form then in force did not contain a column for naming the opposite party. The absence of the partners' names was therefore not treated as fatal, and notice could be given at any stage before disposal.

Conclusion: The objection based on non-impleadment failed and the answer was in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the revision application could be amended to add the names of the ex-partners.

Analysis: Since the proceeding was maintainable despite the dissolved firm's description and the essential requirement was only a fair hearing before final disposal, the refusal to treat the omission of partners' names as fatal meant that amendment was not necessary for the validity of the revision.

Conclusion: The refusal to insist on amendment was justified and the answer was in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by holding that the revision was not incompetent for want of impleadment of the ex-partners and that the procedural omission did not defeat the proceeding.

Ratio Decidendi: In a sales tax revision, non-impleadment of the partners of a dissolved firm is not fatal where the statute only requires a reasonable opportunity of hearing before disposal.

---