TIRATH S. THAKUR, J. ( 1 ) TWO questions fall for consideration in these writ petitions. These are : (i) whether it is essential for the assessing authority to ascertain the legal representatives of the deceased assessee and the estate that has fallen in their hands before any liability by way of tax determined against any such assessee can be recovered from them ? and (ii) whether a demand notice issued and served upon an assessee abates upon his death so as to make it necessary for the assessing authority to issue a fresh demand against the legal representatives before initiating recovery proceedings against them ? the questions arise in the following background : ( 2 ) M/s. Prabhath Engineering, Bangalore, was a partnership concern for the assessment period 1977-78 to 1981-82. For the period 1982-83 and 1983-84, the said concern was a sole proprietary concern of which Mr. K. V. V. Setty, the husband of the petitioner in the present writ petition was the sole proprietor. Assessment proceedings for the period 1977-78 to 1982-83 were completed in which the deceased Sri Setty had participated leading to the determination of a total tax liability of Rs. 1,39,544. 42. For the assessment period 1983-84, however, the deceased assessee was assessed ex parte on best judgment basis on account of the failure of the legal representatives to respond to a proposition notice said to have been served upon them by affixture. The tax liability for the said year was determined at Rs. 1,38,892. 12. Recovery proceedings for a total sum of Rs. 2,78,438. 54 were thereafter started against the petitioner who happens to be the widow of the deceased assessee. The Tahsildar to whom these proceedings were transferred issued to the petitioner the impugned demand notice, annexure E to the writ petition, aggrieved, whereof the petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing the demand raised against her on precisely speaking two distinct grounds. Firstly it is urged that the proceedings initiated by the Tahsildar were vitiated on account of the absence of a proper demand notice as envisaged under section 13 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. Demand notice served upon the deceased assessee for the relevant period it is contended would stand lapsed or abated on account of his death and could not provide a sound basis for any recovery proceedings to be initiated or continued against the petitioner. Demand notice served upon the deceased assessee for the relevant period it is contended would stand lapsed or abated on account of his death and could not provide a sound basis for any recovery proceedings to be initiated or continued against the petitioner. Secondly it is urged that before any demand notice could even otherwise be issued against the petitioner, it was essential for the assessing authority to first determine as to who the legal representatives of the deceased were and whether they had come into possession of nay of his assets. It is urged that the liability of the legal representatives was limited to the estate left behind by the deceased assessee and that so long as the assessing authority did not determine the extent of the estate that had fallen in the hands of the legal representatives of the deceased assessee, it was not possible for the former to initiate or effect any recovery from them. ( 3 ) I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made at the Bar. Section 16 of the act provides that where a dealer dies, his executor, administrator or other legal representative shall be deemed to be the dealer for the purposes of the Act and the provisions of the Act shall apply to him in respect of the business of the deceased dealer, provided that, in respect of any tax, penalty or fee assessed a payable by any such dealer or any tax, penalty or fee which would have been payable by him under the Act if he had not died, the executor, administrator or other legal representative shall be liable only to the extent of the assets of the deceased in his hands. Rule 42 of the Rules framed under the Act makes a similar provisions and, inter alia, provides that the liability of the legal representatives of a deceased assessee may be satisfied out of the estate left behind by him. A harmonious reading of the two provisions leaves no manner of doubt that the liability of the legal representatives of a deceased assessee to liquidate the outstanding tax liability of any such assessee is limited to the extent of the estate that has fallen to the hands of the legal representatives. A harmonious reading of the two provisions leaves no manner of doubt that the liability of the legal representatives of a deceased assessee to liquidate the outstanding tax liability of any such assessee is limited to the extent of the estate that has fallen to the hands of the legal representatives. As to who are the legal representatives of the deceased assessee and what is the extent of the estate that has fallen to their lot upon the latter's death is however a question that shall have to be examined and determined by the assessing authority concerned before it can certify the recovery against any such legal representatives. Such a determination would necessarily require a notice to be issued to the entire body of the legal representatives left behind by the deceased for the nature of the extent of the estate as also the extent to which the same has fallen into the hands of the legal representatives either jointly or individually can be satisfactorily determined only if such legal representatives have a proper notice and are provided an opportunity of being heard in the matter by the authority concerned. In the absence of such determination it is not permissible for the assessing authority of the agency to whom the recovery proceedings are transferred to initiate proceedings for recovery of the outstanding tax dues against any one of the legal representatives. Any reference made by the assessing authority for effecting recovery from any one of such legal representatives is bound to be tentative in nature. To the same effect is a Division Bench decision of this Court in H. R. Jayadeva v. Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Hospet [1975] 36 STC 222 where this Court held that if the assessment had been made when the deceased assessee was alive, it was the duty of the assessing authority to ascertain before recovery proceedings could be instituted as to who the legal representatives of the deceased were and whether they had come into possession of any of his assets. It was only where the legal representatives had succeeded to the estate of the deceased assessee that the extent of the estate so inherited could be proceeded against. Reliance was in support placed by this Court upon an earlier decision also of a Division Bench in Shri Seshayya v. Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Gangavathi [1971] 28 STC 306. It was only where the legal representatives had succeeded to the estate of the deceased assessee that the extent of the estate so inherited could be proceeded against. Reliance was in support placed by this Court upon an earlier decision also of a Division Bench in Shri Seshayya v. Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Gangavathi [1971] 28 STC 306. That was a case where the deceased had left behind 3 sons, 2 daughters and a widow. The tax demanded from the deceased assessee having remained unpaid, demand notices were served only on the 3 sons of the deceased and on their failure to pay the tax, proceedings under section 13 (3) (b) of the Act were instituted before the Magistrate. These proceedings were challenged by the legal representatives in this Court. This Court held that the estate of the deceased could be represented only by the entire body of his heirs and not by the sons alone. As the recovery proceedings under section 13 (3) (b) had been taken only against some of the legal representatives and not against all those who could represent the estate of the deceased, the applications made under section 13 (3) (b) were held to be liable to be rejected. ( 4 ) IN the instant case also apart from the petitioner who is the widow of the deceased, the assessee has left behind three children who according to the petitioner were minors at the time of the filing of these petitions but have since attained majority. The assessing authority has not issued any notice determining the extent of the estate left behind by the deceased and if the same had been shared by them the extent of the estate that had fallen to the share of each before initiating recovery proceedings against the petitioner. Such proceedings as observed earlier were maintainable only to the extent of the estate that is inherited by the legal representatives from the deceased. The determination of the legal representatives and the extent of the estate that has fallen to their hands therefore assumes great significance. In the absence of such a determination, it was not permissible for the assessing authority to institute proceedings for recovery of the amount from only one out of the several other legal representatives left behind by the deceased. The proceedings initiated against he petitioner to that extent are clearly unsustainable. In the absence of such a determination, it was not permissible for the assessing authority to institute proceedings for recovery of the amount from only one out of the several other legal representatives left behind by the deceased. The proceedings initiated against he petitioner to that extent are clearly unsustainable. ( 5 ) THERE is merit even in the second limb of the argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner. The question is in fact squarely answered by a single Bench decision of this Court in smt. Lakshmi Ammal v. Commercial Tax Officer [1983] 54 STC 369 where this Court has held that proceedings under section 13 (2) can be initiated only when an assessee or any other person from whom the demand is made commits default in the payment of taxes payable by him and not otherwise. If a legal representative is to be treated as a defaulter, he has to be issued a notice of demand and that proceedings initiated against the deceased assessee cannot be continued against the legal representative without done so. Demand notice, declared this Court, issued to an assessee abates on his death and while section 16 recognises the liability of the legal representative to the extent of the estate that falls in his hands, it does not permit the continuation of the recovery proceedings against the legal representatives from the stage they were at the time of the death of the deceased assessee. ( 6 ) IT is not in dispute that in so far as the petitioner is concerned, no demand notice was issued against her under section 13 at any stage prior to the institution of the recovery proceedings. Although Government Pleader appearing for the respondent argued that for the assessment period 1983-84 a demand notice had been served upon her by affixture on the last known place of business, it appears that the business premises of the deceased assessee had been put to auction by the Karnataka State Financial Corporation in the year 1983 itself for recovery of the amount outstanding against the assessee. Be that as it may, since a demand notice could be validly issued against the legal representative only after the assessing authority had determined the extent of any such legal representative's liability by reference to the estate that had fallen in his or her hands, any demand raised in anticipation of any such determination was bound to be inconsequential in law. The proper course to be followed in all such cases is to determine who the legal representatives left behind by the deceased are and what is the extent of their liability by reference to the estate that has fallen in their hands before issuing any demand notice asking them to pay the amount to the extent of any such liability. In the circumstances, therefore the demand notice even if it is assumed to have been served upon the petitioner would make little difference. ( 7 ) IN the result these petitions succeed and are hereby allowed. The impugned notices, annexures c, D and E issued by the Commercial Tax Officer and the Tahsildar are hereby quashed. The assessing authority shall identify the legal representatives of the deceased assessee Sri K. V. V. Setty and the extent of their liability having regard to the extent of the estate left behind by deceased. Depending upon the liability so determined, the assessing authority shall be at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings fro recovery of the amount held recoverable from the legal heirs jointly or severally after service of proper demand notices upon them under section 13 of the act. The parties are however left to bear their own costs. ( 8 ) WRIT petitions allowed.