JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by YASHODA NANDAN, J. - A Division Bench of this Court has referred the following question of law to a Full Bench for its opinion : "Whether the karta of a Hindu undivided family which has discontinued business could be arrested in the course of recovery proceedings for the realisation of arrears of sales tax and penalty due from the Hindu undivided family for the period prior to the discontinuance of its business ?" The material facts giving rise to this reference are that Messrs. Bharat Ice, Oil and Allied Industries was a Hindu undivided family firm. Kunj Behari Lal was the karta of the family. The first was registered as a "dealer" under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The firm which started business in 1965 discontinued it in the year 1970. A sum of Rs. 24,106.64 was payable by the firm as arrears of sales tax as well as penalty for the assessment years 1968-69 to 1970-71. A part of this liability had been paid by the firm but a sum of Rs. 6,063.12 remained due. The sales tax authorities commenced recovery proceedings for the amount. In January, 1974, the Deputy Collector (Collection), Sales Tax, Moradabad, proceeded to recovery the aforesaid amount by arrest and detention of Kunj Behari Lal. Kunj Behari Lal consequently filed the present writ petition challenging the legality of the proceedings on the ground that he could not be arrested and detained for recovery of the arrears of sales tax and penalty which were due from the family firm because he was the karta thereof. When the petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court, on behalf of the petitioner reliance was placed on a decision by R. S. Pathak, J. (as he then was), and C. S. P. Singh, J., in Shiv Narain v. Sales Tax Officer ([1972] 29 S.T.C. 150.). In that decision the contention was accepted that the karta of a Hindu undivided family could not be arrested for the purposes of recovering tax due from the Hindu undivided family. The learned Judges who decided the case of Shiv Narain ([1972] 29 S.T.C. 150.) followed with approval an earlier decision by R. S. Pathak, J., in Baladin Ram Kalwar v. Income-tax Officer ([1966] 62 I.T.R. 392.). The learned Judges who decided the case of Shiv Narain ([1972] 29 S.T.C. 150.) followed with approval an earlier decision by R. S. Pathak, J., in Baladin Ram Kalwar v. Income-tax Officer ([1966] 62 I.T.R. 392.). The learned standing counsel, who represented the respondents in the writ petition, on the other hand, placed reliance on the unreported decision by one of us (Satish Chandra, J.) in Raja Ram v. Tahsildar, Haldwani (Civil Misc. Writ No. 5121 of 1964 decided on 2nd March, 1965 (Allahabad High Court).), in which it was held that by reason of section 3-C(1)(b) of the Act "every member of he family is deemed to be a 'dealer'. The 'dealer' on non-payment of the tax becomes a defaulter and is proceeded with as such. Each member of the family being himself a 'dealer' would be a defaulter as well. If each member was a defaulter, proceedings by way of arrest could well be taken against such a member." Since in Shiv Naraini's case ([1972] 29 S.T.C. 150.) neither the decision of this court in Raja Ram's case (Civil Misc. Writ No. 5121 of 1964 decided on 2nd March, 1965 (Allahabad High Court).) nor section 3-C(1)(b) of the Act had been noticed, the Bench before which writ petition came up for hearing felt that it requires reconsideration. Hence this reference. The question referred to us must be considered with reference to the provisions of the Act unhampered by any decision concerned with the Income-tax Act because no provision exists in the Income-tax Act analogous to section 3-C, which will be adverted to presently. The word "dealer" is defined in section 2(c) of the Act. The definition makes it clear that a Hindu joint family has been treated by the legislature as a "dealer" and a taxable entity separate and distinct from the individuals constituting it. By reason of section 3 of the Act, every "dealer", including a Hindu undivided family, incurs the liability to taxation subject to the provisions of the Act. The definition makes it clear that a Hindu joint family has been treated by the legislature as a "dealer" and a taxable entity separate and distinct from the individuals constituting it. By reason of section 3 of the Act, every "dealer", including a Hindu undivided family, incurs the liability to taxation subject to the provisions of the Act. section 3-C of the Act, as far as relevant for our purposes, runs as follows : "3-C. (1) Where a dealer is a firm, or association of persons or a joint Hindu family, and such firm, association or family has discontinued business - (a) tax including penalty, if any, payable under this Act by such firm, association or family up to the date of such discontinuance may be assessed and determined as if no such discontinuance had taken place; and (b) every person who was at the time of such discontinuance a partner of such firm or a member of such association or family shall, notwithstanding such discontinuance, be liable severally and jointly for the payment of the tax assessed and penalty imposed and payable by such firm, association or family whether such assessment is made or penalty is imposed prior to or after such discontinuance, and, subject as aforesaid, the provisions of this Act shall apply as if every such person or partner were himself a dealer : Provided that ............" Section 3-C(1)(a) makes possible assessment of tax and imposition of penalty in respect of a period prior to discontinuance of business by a firm, association of persons or joint Hindu family even after such discontinuance against the firm, association or family, as the case might be, as if such firm, association or family were still continuing business. The discontinuance of business by a firm, association of persons or joint Hindu family may have been occasioned because of the firm, association of persons or joint Hindu family having come to an end. In such cases, proceedings for recovery of taxes assessed in accordance with section 3-C(1)(a) could not have been taken against the non-existent firm, association of persons or joint Hindu family because they would not be "dealers". Section 3-C(1)(b) is intended to meet such situations. In such cases, proceedings for recovery of taxes assessed in accordance with section 3-C(1)(a) could not have been taken against the non-existent firm, association of persons or joint Hindu family because they would not be "dealers". Section 3-C(1)(b) is intended to meet such situations. On account of this provision of the Act, the taxes assessed and penalties imposed on such firms, associations or families either before discontinuance of business by them or thereafter become, in the eye of law, the joint as well as several liability of every person who was at the time of such discontinuance of partner of the related firm or member of the concerned association of family. Further, as a consequence of the legal fiction introduced by the last clause of section 3-C(1)(b), the provisions of the Act, including sections 8 and 33 thereof, become applicable to such partners or members as are contemplated by its earlier part, as if they were themselves the "dealers" on whom taxes had been assessed or penalties imposed. Because of section 3-C(1)(b) of the Act thus even after discontinuance of business by a joint Hindu family taxes assessed and penalties imposed on it for a period prior to such discontinuance become the liabilities of every member of such family including its karta as if he himself were a "dealer". If any member of such a family fails to pay the tax or penalty liabilities of the Hindu undivided family, he becomes a defaulter. In such an event if the karta or any other member of the Hindu undivided family which has discontinued business is nominated in the certificate envisaged by section 33 of the Act, he would be, in our opinion, liable to be arrested in the course of recovery proceedings for realisation of arrears of sales tax and penalty due from the Hindu undivided family. In our opinion, Raja Ram v. Tahsildar, Haldwani (Civil Misc. Writ No. 5121 of 1964 decided on 2nd March, 1965 (Allahabad High Court).), was correctly decided. We are in respectful disagreement with the decision of this court in Shiv Narain v. Sales Tax Officer ([1972] 29 S.T.C. 150.), to the extent that it took a contrary view. In our opinion, Raja Ram v. Tahsildar, Haldwani (Civil Misc. Writ No. 5121 of 1964 decided on 2nd March, 1965 (Allahabad High Court).), was correctly decided. We are in respectful disagreement with the decision of this court in Shiv Narain v. Sales Tax Officer ([1972] 29 S.T.C. 150.), to the extent that it took a contrary view. For the reasons given above, our answer to the question referred is that : "The karta like any other member of a Hindu undivided family which has discontinued business could be arrested in the course of recovery proceedings for the realisation of arrears of sales tax and penalty due from the Hindu undivided family for the period prior to the discontinuance of its business, in case he is mentioned in the certificate contemplated by section 33 of the Act." [After the decision of the Full Bench, the petition came for final hearing before the Division Bench consisting of SATISH CHANDRA and H. N. SETH, JJ., and the court delivered the following judgment on 27th November, 1974 : -] The judgment of the court was delivered by SATISH CHANDRA, J. - The principal question raised in this writ petition was whether the karta of a Hindu undivided family which has discontinued business can be arrested in the course of recovery proceedings for the realisation of the arrears of sales tax and penalty due from the Hindu undivided family for the period prior to the discontinuance of its business. The Full Bench has answered the question by holding that the karta like any other member of a Hindu undivided family which has discontinued business could be arrested in the course of recovery proceedings for the realisation of arrears of sales tax and penalty due from the Hindu undivided family for the period prior to the discontinuance of its business in case he is mentioned in the certificate contemplated by section 33 of the Act. In the writ petition it has not been asserted that the petitioner who was the karta was not mentioned in the recovery certificate. The question with regard to the mention of the name of the person against whom the proceedings are sought to be continued arose while the matter was being argued before the Full Bench. For that reason there is no specific mention either in the writ petition or in the counter-affidavit of the factual aspects of this question. The question with regard to the mention of the name of the person against whom the proceedings are sought to be continued arose while the matter was being argued before the Full Bench. For that reason there is no specific mention either in the writ petition or in the counter-affidavit of the factual aspects of this question. In case the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the certificate issued under section 33 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, the proceedings could not validly continue against him. Subject to these observations the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed, but we make no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.