ORDER Bishambhar Dayal, C. J. - 1. This petition arises out of an assessment of sales tax for the period from 23rd October 1957 to 31sf March 1959. Original assessment was made on the 28th September 1960 and sales tax to the extent of Rs. 3644.28 was imposed upon the assessee. A notice for reassessment was issued on the 30th December 1965 under section 19 of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act. The case was heard by the assessing officer who imposed an additional tax and penalty to the extent of Rs. 21,030.00. An appeal was filed against the order which is still pending. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the assessee and two grounds have been raised by learned counsel for the applicant. In the first place it is contended that the notice issued to the applicant was beyond the time prescribed by law and the assessing officer, therefore, had no jurisdiction to re-assess under the said Act. It was also contended that the notice issued was not a proper notice and on that basis there could be no proper re-assessment. 3. We have heard learned counsel for both sides. The facts stated above are not in dispute. The first assessment having been made on the 28th September 1960 for the period from 23rd October 1957 to 1st March 1959 till which date the new Act, M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, had not come into force, the assessment for the period which was covered by the C. P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947. Under that Act a notice for re-assessment had to be given under section 11-A of the Act within three calendar years after the period for which assessment is made. Thus, calculating from the 1st of January 1960, the period would expire on the 31st December 1962. The notice for re-assessment having been given on the 30th December 1965 was clearly beyond limitation and no re-assessment could be made on the basis of that notice. 4. On behalf of the Department a question has been raised that this writ petition should not be entertained on behalf of the applicant Naraindas Sindhwani who has filed the petition in his personal capacity; that the assessment had been made on the firm Punjab Soap Works and that, therefore, this petition is incompetent. We are unable to agree with this contention. We are unable to agree with this contention. Punjab Soap Works was a firm of partnership and under the Sales Tax Act it may be considered as a unit for assessment but it is not a legal person within the law in India and a writ petition can be filed by a person who is aggrieved by the order. Naraindas Sindhwani, being a major partner, was certainly a person who was aggrieved by that order of assessment. We are of opinion that Naraindas Sindhwani has sufficient interest to challenge the validity of re-assessment order passed by the assessing officer. We, therefore, see no force in the contention raised by learned counsel for the Department. This contention has been raised by the respondent in the other petitions also and is overruled for the same reason. 5. Another quest on raised in this writ petition is that the notice issued to the applicant did not state the reasons on the basis of which re-assessment was proposed to be made. The contention is that the reason why re-assessment has become necessary must be made clear in the notice so that the assessee gets an opportunity to satisfy the officer that the reasons were not sufficient or did not exist and that, therefore, the question of re-assessment does not arise, and as no reasons have been shown in the notice, this opportunity was denied to the applicant. For this proposition learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon Firm Janla Hardware Stores Vs. B. S. Parihar 1962 JLJ 749=1963 RN 8=ILR 1963 MP 840= (1963) 14 STC 67 . In this case a Division Bench analysed the provisions of section 19 (1) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, as they stand after the amendment in 1961. The relevant observations of the learned Judges may be quoted as follows:- "If the matter had to be decided with reference to the unamended section 19, then we would have had no hesitation in rejecting the contention of the petitioner that the notices issued under section 19 were bad and invalid and the reassessments made were without jurisdiction But the case is now governed by the amended section 19 (1) and on that provision and rule 33, as it stands, the notices issued to the petitioners are fundamentally defective and invalid. * * * * But the requirement now is of a certainly of there being for any reason and under assessment or escaped assessment or assessment at a lower rate or a wrong deduction in the assessment which is sought to be reopened under section 19 (1). This is the import of the words 'if for any reason any sale or purchase of goods chargeable to tax under the Act during any period has been under-assessed or has escaped assessment......'. The under-assessment or escapement of assessment or assessment at a lower rate or a wrong deduction must be for some reason. There must be thus a causative and rational connection between the reason stated and the consequence of under-assessment or escaped assessment or of an assessment at a lower rate or a wrong deduction. It is not necessary to speculate on the reason for the amendment. Whatever it may be, the result of the amendment actually effected is that proceedings under section 19 (1) cannot now be initiated merely on the chance of under-assessment or escaped assessment or assessment at a lower rate or a wrong deduction being established in those proceedings. They can be founded now only on some definite facts showing under-assessment, or escaped assessment, or assessment at a lower rate or a wrong deduction for any reason. Now, it cannot be disputed that the issue of a notice is a condition precedent to the validity of an assessment under section 19 (1), Under section 19 (1) the dealer has a right to be heard and of making his submissions against the re-assessment. This right implies the issue of a notice to the dealer giving him such information as will enable him to show cause against the reassessment and to question the jurisdiction of the taxing authority to proceed under section 19 (1)." After this clear exposition of the law by a Divisional Bench of this Court which is binding on us, we see no reason to doubt that the notice in this case, which did not disclose any reason for reopening the assessment, was not according to law and did not give the necessary protection to the assessee. 6. We accordingly quash the notice dated 30th December 1965 and set aside the order of reassessment dated 27th October 1967. 6. We accordingly quash the notice dated 30th December 1965 and set aside the order of reassessment dated 27th October 1967. By the same order of reassessment dated 27th October 1967 penalty was also imposed upon the assessee which also falls with the re-assessment. The petition is allowed with costs. Counsel's fee is fixed at Rs. 75/-. The outstanding amount of the security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner.