JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by G. T. NANAVATI, J. - On an application made by the Commissioner of Sales Tax under section 69 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, the Tribunal has referred the following question for our decision : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the department had no legal authority to proceed to recover the amount of Rs. 17,982.72 as tax straight-away from the opponent as the principal under section 22(1) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, without complying with the provisions of section 43 thereof, in order to first determine or assess the opponent's liability to pay the said amount of tax which was not paid by M/s. Mehta & Co., as the selling commission agent as declared in terms of certificate in form No. 21 ?". M/s. Nandlal Madhavji (hereinafter referred to as "the opponent') is carrying on business of selling oil-seeds. It is a dealer registered under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. Between Kartik Sud 1 and Aso Vad 30 of Samvat year 2027, the opponent, through its commission agent, M/s. Mehta & Co., Rajkot, sold oil-seeds worth Rs. 11,13,334. In respect of these sales, the commission agent had issued certificate in form 21 to the opponent and those certificates were produced by the opponent along with its returns wherein the said sales were included. Thus, in respect of its own assessment, the opponent had declared that the selling agent had included the said sales in his returns and had paid tax to the Government for the same. The certificates were accepted by the Sales Tax Officer, who completed the assessment proceedings, and relying upon the same, excluded those sales from the opponent's total taxable turnover of sales. On an inquiry, the Sales Tax Officer came to know that the commission agent, though had disclosed all the sales, had paid tax on sales worth Rs. 3,19,359 only. Though the commission agent had declared in the certificates in form No. 21 that the tax was paid in respect of all the sales, it turned out that he had not paid tax worth Rs. 17,982.72 in respect of the sale worth Rs. 5,99,424. The Sales Tax Officer, therefore, on September 15, 1975, issued notice in form No. 37 for initiating reassessment proceedings. 17,982.72 in respect of the sale worth Rs. 5,99,424. The Sales Tax Officer, therefore, on September 15, 1975, issued notice in form No. 37 for initiating reassessment proceedings. The said notice was, however, withdrawn, possibly because it was believed by him that it was not open to him to issue such a notice under section 44 of the Act. Thereafter, he issued another notice dated June 9, 1977, under section 22 of the Act calling upon the opponent to show cause why Rs. 17,982.72 being the tax payable on the sales of Rs. 5,99,424 should not be recovered from it as the principal, it being jointly and severally liable to pay that amount. As the opponent had not remained present in the inquiry following that notice, the Sales Tax Officer passed an order on September 14, 1977. The Sales Tax Officer also passed an order for issuance of demand notice for payment of the said amount of tax. The opponent then preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. It is not necessary to refer to the various grounds on which the order passed by the Sales Tax Officer was challenged as ultimately, in the second appeal before the Tribunal, only one contention was pressed and others were given up. The Assistant Commissioner did not find any substance in any of the contentions raised before him and he dismissed the appeal. The opponent thereafter filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Its contention before the Tribunal was that even though it was jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of Rs. 17,982.72 as tax under section 22(2) as the principal, because its commission agent did not pay the same, the same could not be recovered straightaway from it as has been done in this case without first holding the opponent liable to pay the same in an appropriate proceeding for assessment. The Tribunal agreed with the contention raised on behalf of the Commissioner of Sales Tax that the opponent as the principal was primarily liable to pay tax on the sales effected by its commission agent, and that in view of section 22(1) of the Act the opponent and its commission agent both were jointly and severally liable to pay tax on the turnover of such commission sales under section 6 of the Act. The Tribunal further held that because of sub-section (2) of section 22, the opponent was absolved from its liability to pay tax as it had produced declarations in form No. 21 issued by the commission agent. The Tribunal also agreed with the department that when as a matter of fact it was shown that the commission agent had not paid the tax as declared in the certificates issued in form No. 21, it was open to the department to recover the same even from the principal. The Tribunal was, however, of the view that such unpaid tax cannot be recovered straightaway from the principal by merely issuing a demand notice under section 48 of the Act. In such an eventuality, section 43 would become applicable and, therefore, it would be necessary for the department to either assess or reassess the principal in order to make him liable for payment of tax in respect of such commission sales. As regards the facts of this case, the Tribunal was of the view that as the previous notice dated September 15, 1975, issued for that very purpose was withdrawn, the reassessment proceedings can be said to have been dropped by the Sales Tax Officer. It further held that the subsequent notice dated June 9, 1977, was not a notice issued for the purpose of initiating reassessment proceedings but was a notice issued under section 22 of the Act. The Tribunal then observed that section 22 does not provide machinery for recovering the tax due and, therefore, the second notice must be regarded as a demand notice only. It further held that as no proceedings for assessment in respect of the said commission sales were initiated, it was not open to the department to issue a demand notice straightaway and recover the unpaid tax from the opponent. The Tribunal taking this view allowed the appeal and held that the action of the Sales Tax Officer was without any authority of law. As stated earlier, the Commissioner of Sales Tax moved the Tribunal under section 69 of the Act and as the Tribunal was of the view that the question of law did arise, has referred the above stated question for our decision. As stated earlier, the Commissioner of Sales Tax moved the Tribunal under section 69 of the Act and as the Tribunal was of the view that the question of law did arise, has referred the above stated question for our decision. What is contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the applicant, Commissioner of Sales Tax, is that section 43 of the Act has no application to the facts of this case and the determination made under section 22 should be regarded as sufficient and legal as the said determination was made after following the principles of natural justice. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the decision of this Court in Jivanlal Maganlal Palel v. Mangaldas Joshi [1971] 27 STC 419, which has been relied upon by the Tribunal is not applicable to this case as that was a case of a transferee of a business and the question which had arisen was whether the transferee was entitled to a notice pending assessment proceedings against the transferor under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. In that case, the court was required to construe section 34 which is similar to section 43 with which we are concerned in this case. It was held in that case that though the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, or the Rules framed thereunder, do not contain any specific provision for giving any notice to the transferee of a running business, who becomes liable under section 19(4) of that Act, on true construction of the provisions of section 34, he becomes entitled to notices which are contemplated by sub-section (3) of section 33 of that Act. It may be stated that section 33 of that Act relates to the actual assessment of taxes and provides how the Commissioner should proceed for the purpose of such an assessment. In that sense, it was held that section 34 contemplates the application of all the relevant provisions of that Act to the case of a transferee-dealer who becomes liable under the provisions of section 19(4) to pay the tax as if he were a "dealer" himself. It may also be stated that section 26 of the Act is similar to section 19(4) of the Act. It may also be stated that section 26 of the Act is similar to section 19(4) of the Act. Though section 34 of that Act was not construed with reference to the liability of a principal in respect of the tax due of his commission agent we see no reason why the same reasoning should not apply to such a case also and hold that section 43 became applicable to the facts of this case also, particularly when reassessment proceedings initiated under section 44 of the Act were dropped. It is difficult to appreciate how the department can straightaway recover the unpaid amount of tax from the principal without resorting to reassessment proceedings. Section 22 makes the commission agent and the principal jointly and severally liable to pay the tax. It is a provision which creates liability for payment of tax, but it does not provide the procedure for assessment of the tax and, therefore, even in respect of the liability arising as a result of section 22 of the Act, the procedure for assessment provided in the Act has to be followed. Admittedly, the demand notice has been issued without reassessment and without determining the liability of the opponent in respect of those commission sales. In our opinion, therefore, the Tribunal was right in holding the action of the Sales Tax Officer as without any authority of law. In that view of the matter, we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department. There shall be no order as to costs in this reference. Reference answered in the affirmative.