Minors admitted to the benefits of a partnership can be held personally liable for tax and penalty incurred by the firm during their minority, as per the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act and the Karnataka Sales Tax Act.

( 1 ) THESE revision petitions are under Section 13 (4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the act' for short ). Since the parties in both the matters are the same and the question to be determined is the same, these revision petitions are disposed of by this common order. The original order shall be kept in the record of criminal revision petition No. 301 of 1989 and the attested copy thereof shall be retained in the record of criminal revision petition No. 283/1989.

( 2 ) THE record of criminal revision petition No. 301/1989 and the record and proceedings in crl. Misc. No. 4/1989 in the court of the judicial magistrate first class, siddapur, district uttara kannada, and the record in criminal revision petition No. 283/1989 and the record and proceedings in crl. Misc. No. 3/1989 in the court of the judicial magislrate firsi class, siddapur, district uttara kannada, are examined and perused.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel representing the petitioners in both the petitions and the learned high court government pleader for the assistant commissioner of commercial taxes, dharwad-respondent No. 1; and the state of karnataka-respondent No. 2, in both the criminal revision petitions, are heard. The learned counsel for respondent No. 3 in criminal revision petition No. 301/1989 did not make his submissions.

( 4 ) IN criminal revision petition No. 301/1989, respondent No. 3 is represented and notice to respondent No. 4 has been dispensed with, whereas in criminal revision petition No. 283/1989, notice to respondent nos. 3 and 4 therein has been dispensed with on the submissions made by the learned counsel representing the petitioners therein.

( 5 ) THE facts in crl. Misc. No. 4/1989 in the court of the j. m. f. c. siddapur, out of which criminal revision petition No. 301/1989 arises, are these: M/s. Shriram adike stores, siddapur, is a partnership firm ('the firm' for short) that came into existence on 11-1-1975 as a result of contract of partnership entered into between basavaraj c. Patil respondent No. 3, and sudhabai s. Gokarn respondent No. 4 in the criminal revision petition. Sudharshan, son of digambar bhatkalkar (petitioner No. 1) and sunil, son of digambar bhatkalkar (petitioner No. 2), the brothers, who were minors on 11-1-1975, were admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The firm is a dealer, registered in registration certificate No. 4310328. 5. The turnover of the business of the firm for the period from 1-10-1979 to 18-10-1980 was assessed and the firm was found due in a sum of Rs. 1,07,403-45 towards sales tax. The demand notice was served on 28-7-1988 to pay the sales tax assessed. The due date for payment was 19-8-1988. Since the amount due towards sales tax was not paid, the assistant commissioner of commercial taxes (asst.), dharwad, made an application before the court of j. m. f. c. , siddapur, under Section 13 (3) (b) of the act to effect the recovery of the amount due towards tax and the sum of Rs. 7518-23 due in respect of the penalty levied under Section 13 (2) of the Act, due from the firm. This application was filed on 28-11-1988 against the firm and its partners-petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and respondent nos. 3 and 4. The application was registered in crl. Misc. No. 4/1989 and the learned j. m. f. c. issued notice to the finn and its partners. Respondent No. 3 filed his objections resisting the application and denying the liability. Among other things, he contended while admitting that he was one of the partners of the firm, that the books of accounts of the firm for the years 1979-80 and 1980-81 had been seized by the siddapur police in connection with an enquiry; that, therefore, the books of accounts were not produced before the sales tax authorities; and that the sales tax authorities, in the absence of the books of accounts, had assessed the tax according to their whims and fancies. He also contended that the sales tax authorities had launched two prosecutions in respect of the subjec