( 1 ) ON a reference made by one of us (Puttaswamy, J.), being of the opinion that the ruling of this court in Ganesha Narayana Hegde Doddamane v. Commercial Tax Officer [1977] 40 STC 407; (1977) 2 Kar LJ 508 needs reconsideration these cases were posted before us for disposal.

( 2 ) THE petitioners were partners of a firm called "kantilal Padamshi and Co. " of Hubl. This firm was carrying on business in cotton, cotton seeds, etc. , and was also a commission agent. The firm was a registered "dealer" both under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the KST Act), and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the CST Act ). The firm was assessed to taxes for different periods both under the KST and CST Acts. But before the taxes due and payable by the firm could be recovered, the firm came to be dissolved. Thereafter, the Commercial Tax Officer, II Circle, Hubli, Dharwar District (hereinafter referred to as the C. T. O.) served demand notices on the firm demanding payment of a sum of Rs. 1,22,529. 56 which included taxes due and payable and the penalty levied under section 13 (2) of the KST Act. Payments not having been made by