Statutory jurisdiction limits composition assessments: separate legal capacities cannot be clubbed merely by consent.

Composition assessments cannot be clubbed for legally distinct capacities merely on the basis of consent, because taxing power must be found in the statute itself. Where the same person answers in different legal capacities, such as owner and guardian, the statutory scheme treats the returns or assessments attributable to those capacities separately. A harmonious reading of the principal Act and the amending composition provision did not permit clubbing of separate holdings or applications that remained legally distinct. The clubbing of the three composition applications was therefore unlawful, and the assessment based on that clubbing was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether separate composition applications filed in different legal capacities could be clubbed and assessed together merely on the basis of consent, in the absence of statutory authority.

Analysis: The composition provision under the amending Act was held to operate within the framework of the principal Act. Where one individual answers to different legal capacities, such as owner and guardian, the statute indicates that the returns or assessments attributable to those distinct capacities are to be dealt with separately. The existence of consent by a third person could not enlarge the taxing authority's power, because jurisdiction must flow from the statute itself. On a harmonious reading of the provisions governing ordinary assessment and composition, the benefit of composition did not authorise clubbing of holdings that were legally separate and relatable to distinct applicants.

Conclusion: The clubbing of the three composition applications was unlawful and the assessment based on such clubbing was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Taxing power cannot be exercised beyond the statute, and consent cannot confer jurisdiction to club together legally distinct holdings or applications for composition.

---