MUDHOLKAR, J. - This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Shelat in Miscellaneous Petition No. 232 of 1958. The relevant facts are as follows :-

Prior to the 23rd of May, 1957, one Tolaram Assanmal, the father of the appellant, was carrying on business at Colaba, Bombay, in the name and style of Tolaram's. He died on the 23rd of May, 1957. It is common ground that even during the lifetime of his father, the appellant was managing the business of Tolaram's. On the 31st of October, 1953, the Sales Tax Officer, "A" Ward, Bombay, served a notice in Form XXXIV under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, on the appellant saying that he wished to satisfy himself that the returns filed by the firm in respect of the quarter ending 31st March, 1953, were correct and complete, and asked the firm to produce evidence in support of those returns. In compliance with the notice the appellant produced the required evidence. It would appear that subsequent to this the Sales Tax Officer, Enforcement Branch, seized certain account books belonging to the appellant. On 7th April, 1958, he passed an order of retention of those books for the purpose of verification. On the 12th of March, 1958, the Sales Tax Officer issued a notice in Form XIV to the appellant under section 15 of the Sales Tax Act. The notice stated as follows :-

"Whereas I am satisfied that your turnover in respect of the sales amounting to Rs. 1,00,000 for the period from 1st November, 1952 to 31st March, 1953, has escaped assessment for general tax, you are hereby directed to attend in person or by a legal practitioner or by an agent authorised in writing at the above address at 11 a.m. on 31st March, 1958, and to show cause ....... etc."

A similar notice under the same date and in the same Form was also served on the firm of Tolaram's in respect of the special tax for the same period. Two other notices under the same date were also served both for general and special taxes for the period between 1st of April, 1953, and 31st of March, 1954. All these notices together with the covering letter dated the 13th of March, 1958, were served on the appellant at the business premises of M/s. Tolaram's. According to the appellant, the Sales Tax Officer had no authority to issue these notices. He, therefore, preferred a petition before this Court challenging the validity of the action taken by the Sales Tax Officer.

The matter was heard by Mr. Justice Shelat. It was urged before the learned Judge that the Sales Tax Officer was justified in serving these notices on the appellant, firstly, because he was the heir of the deceased Tolaram and secondly, because he was the manager of the business of Tolaram's even during the lifetime of his father and is so subsequent to the death of his father. It was also argued before the learned Judge that the appellant by his conduct had held himself out as the dealer and consequently he is now estopped from contending that he is not a "dealer" as defined in the Act. The learned Judge negatived the contention of the Sales Tax Officer that the appellant being the heir of the deceased Tolaram could be proceeded against by the department in respect of escaped assessment for a period during which his father was alive. He, however, held that the appellant not only held himself out as a "dealer" as defined in the Act but being the manager of the business of Tolaram's even during the lifetime of his father and particularly during the period in question, the Sales Tax Officer was justified in issuing a notice against him. The learned Judge also held that the appellant had held himself out as a "dealer" by making certain applications under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, and therefore, it did not lie in his mouth now to say that he is not a "dealer".

We would like to point out at the outset that the learned Advocate-General who appears for the Sales Tax Officer frankly stated that the view taken by the learned Judge that the appellant cannot be said to be a "dealer