Misdescription in sales tax notices was a formal error only, and jurisdiction was not lost where the assessee suffered no prejudice.

Misdescription of trustees as partners in the assessment and demand notices was only an error in form and did not deprive the assessing authority of jurisdiction. The business was shown to be carried on by a trust through its trustees under a trade name, and the notices effectively informed the dealer of the proceedings. As the assessee participated without objection, produced books of account, and suffered no prejudice, the notices were valid. The tribunal treated the trustees as the persons liable to be proceeded against for the trust business, so the jurisdictional challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessment and demand notices were invalid because the trustees of the assessee trust were described as partners instead of trustees, and whether such misdescription deprived the assessing authority of jurisdiction.

Analysis: The registration certificate and the surrounding facts showed that the business was carried on by a trust through its trustees under a trade name. The notice initiating assessment served its purpose of informing the dealer of the proceeding, and the assessee participated without objection, produced books of account, and suffered no prejudice from the erroneous description. Section 11A(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 permits proceedings against the person owning the business carried on under a trade name, and the trustees, as legal owners of the trust property for the purposes of the business, were the persons liable to be proceeded against. The incorrect description of the trustees as partners was therefore only an error in form and did not amount to a jurisdictional defect.

Conclusion: The misdescription did not vitiate the assessment or demand notices, and the objection to jurisdiction failed.

---