Trade name notice defect was only formal; assessment under the Bombay Sales Tax Act remained valid.

Notices issued in the trade name of a sole proprietorship did not render assessment or revisional proceedings under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 non-est, because the statutory concept of a dealer is wide enough to include a sole proprietor and the notice provisions require substance, not rigid form. The use of the trade name was treated as a defect of form rather than a fundamental failure of notice, and proceedings would be invalid only if the misdescription caused prejudice or showed absence of notice in substance. The reference was answered in favour of the Revenue, and the Tribunal erred in treating the assessment orders as void.

---

---

Issues: Whether assessment and revisional proceedings under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 were rendered non-est merely because notices were issued in the trade name of a sole proprietorship instead of in the name of the proprietress.

Analysis: The statutory scheme treats a dealer as a person carrying on business and the definition of person is inclusive enough to cover a sole proprietor. The assessment provisions permit proceedings against a dealer and require service of notice to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Rules prescribing Form 27 regulate the manner of notice, but the use of the trade name does not, by itself, defeat the notice or the jurisdiction to proceed. The defect alleged was one of form and not a fundamental absence of notice. A proceeding cannot be branded non-est unless the misdescription causes prejudice or shows a failure of notice in substance. The earlier authority relied on by the Tribunal involved a case of no notice and a materially different factual setting.

Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of the Revenue and against the dealer. The Tribunal was wrong in treating the assessment orders as non-est on the ground that the notices were issued in the trade name.

---