Kondaiah, J

1. The petitioner Sureshkumar Mishra is the petitioner in both these writ petitions. In these writ petitions he challenges the validity of the assessment orders made by the Sales Tax authorities in respect of the firm M/s Rupam Trading Company for the years 1970-71 and 1971-72 and the recovery proceedings there under. Miscellaneous Petition No. 86 of 1976 is to challenge the assessment order in respect of the year 1970-71, where under a demand of Rs. 28,464.00 has been raised on 29-1-1975 by the assessing authority Miscellaneous Petition No. 283 of 1976 is directed against the assessment order for the year 1971-72 where under a demand of Rs. 27,775.00 has been raised.

2. The petitioner was a partner of M/s Rupam Trading Company along with Rajendraprasad Heda, the third respondent herein. Both of them had equal shares. They did business in electric goods having their place of business at 153, Devi Ahilya Marg (Jail Road) Indore and it was registered as a 'dealer' under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, The partnership business was dissolved on 31.3.1974 due to the retirement of the petitioner. In fact a deed of dissolution of partnership was drawn up on 11-9-1974 Subsequent to the date of dissolution of the partnership, the Sales Tax Authorities completed the assessment of the partnership business for the year 1970-71 on 29-1-1975 and consequently served a demand notice (Annexure B) dated 23-8-1975 on the petitioner. In respect of the assessment for the year 1971-72, the petitioner received a demand notice dated 21-6-1976 for recovery of Rs. 27,775.00 Hence these writ petitions.

3. The sum and substance of the contention of Shri M.A. Khan learned counsel for the petitioner is three-fold:

(1) That the assessment of a dissolved firm cannot be made by the Assessment Authority under the Sales Tax Act without notice to each one of the erstwhile partners of the dissolved firm and therefore the impugned orders of assessment are illegal and without jurisdiction.

(2) That the recovery of the tax due in respect of a dissolved firm can only be made from a registered dealer unless registration certificate is altered or changed.

(3) No recovery can be made against the petitioner as he has no means to pay the balance or arrears of tax.

This claim of the petitioner is resisted by Shri G.S. Solanki Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State and the Sales Tax Officer and Shri G.M. Chafekar, learned counsel for the third respondent Rajendraprasad Heda the other partner, contending inter alia that the assessing authority has jurisdiction and is competent to assess the business and turn over of any dissolved firm as if there was no dissolution and the notice served on the other partner the third respondent for completing the enquiry before passing the orders of assessment is sufficient compliance with the law and therefore, there is no illegality or lack of jurisdiction in the impugned order of assessment and that the recovery proceedings against the petitioner as well as the third respondent are perfectly valid and justified and the third respondent has in fact paid more than 50 percent of the tax due and payable by the partnership firm in respect of the sale, tax for the period prior to the date of dissolution and, therefore these writ petitions may be dismissed.

4. Upon the respective contentions of the parties the following questions arose for decision:-

(1) Whether the Sales Tax assessing authority is competent to complete the assessment of a dissolved firm without issuing notices to each one of the erstwhile partners?

(2) Whether the recovery proceedings can be initiated against the erstwhile partners who are not given notice or afforded opportunity before completing the assessment and without the modification or alteration of the registration certificate, granted to the partnership firm?

(3) Whether the recovery proceedings against the petitioner are justified?

5. We shall first take up question No. 1. The answer