K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY and YOGESHWAR DAYAL, J. - (1.) THE question raised in these cases is as to the validity of the notice served for reassessment of the escaped turnover of the respondents-dealers.
(2.) THE notice was not served by post or personally on the dealer, which is the partnership firm in every case. In Civil Appeal No. 479 of 1979 where the main arguments were addressed, the notice was served on N. A. Merchant who was the Manager of the firm. Upon that service the counsel instructed by the dealer along with N. A. Merchant appeared before the assessment officer and raised objection as to the validity of the notice. It was contended that there was no notice served on the dealer as required by law. However, the assessment officer proceeded to make an order of reassessment. This reassessment order was confirmed by the appellate authority reducing the quantum of suppressed sales. The revision filed against the appellate order was also dismissed but on further reducing the quantum of suppressed sales. The second appeal against the said order was also dismissed by the Tribunal.
(3.) UPON a reference application made by the dealer the Tribunal drew a statement of the case with certain questions of law arising out of the Tribunal's judgment and referred to the Bombay High Court. Questions Nos. 2 and 3 are relevant and read as follows : "Question No. 2 : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the notice under section 15 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, served on Mr. N. A. Merchant, an employee of the concern was a valid service in law ? Question No. 3 : Whether on a true and correct interpretation of section 15 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessment proceedings were valid in law, though the notice under the said section 15 was served on Mr. Merchant, an employee of the concern, and not on the dealer ?" ;