S.N. Dwivedi, J.
1. The facts are not in dispute ; the parties are at variance about the application of the law to the undisputed facts. So there arises a neat point of law.
2. There was a firm of certain partners. The firm was known as Jeet Mai Kalloo Mal. It was carrying on the business of manufacturing mustard oil. Radha Krishna Maheshwari was a partner of the firm. The firm was dissolved during the assessment year 1961-62. The assets of the firm were distributed amongst the partners. A certain quantity of mustard oil fell to the share of Radha Krishna Maheshwari. On 8th November, 1961, Radha Krishna Maheshwari set up his own business of manufacturing mustard oil. He started the new business in the name of Rameshwar Oil Mills. The mustard oil which had fallen to his share in the distribution of the assets of the dissolved firm was sold by him for Rs. 33,887. The Sales Tax Officer assessed sales tax on the sale of this oil. In appeal, the appellate authority held that sales tax could not be levied on the sale. The revising authority, however, agreed with the Sales Tax Officer and disagreed with the appellate authority.
3. Is Radha Krishna Maheshwari liable to pay sales tax on the sale of the oil This is the short point of law. Section 3 is the principal charging section in the U.P. Sales Tax Act. It provides that, subject to the provisions of the Act, every dealer shall, for each assessment year, pay a tax at the rate of two naye paise per rupee on his turnover of such year. Section 3-A(1) provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 3, the State Government may, by a notification in the Gazette, declare that the turnover in respect of any goods or class of goods shall not be liable to tax except at such single point in the series of sales by successive dealers as the State Government may specify. Sub-section (2) further provides that if a declaration is made under Sub-section (1), the State Government may further declare that the turnover in respect of such goods or class of goods shall be liable to tax at such rate not exceeding ten naye paise per rupee as may be specified. The State Government has issued a notification under Section 3-A(1) and (2). It is dated 1st April, 1960. According to this notification sales tax is payable on the sale of mustard oil by the manufacturer. As according to Section 3-A sales tax is payable by a dealer, the word 'manufacturer' in the notification should be amplified to read as the dealer-cum-manufacturer. Now who is the dealer-manufacturer in this case?, the dissolved firm or Radha Krishna Maheshwari. Undoubtedly, the latter was a partner of the dissolved firm. But merely for that reason it cannot be said that he is the dealer-manufacturer. The word 'dealer' is defined in Section 2(c). It means any person or association of persons carrying on the business of buying or selling goods in Uttar Pradesh and includes a firm.
4. Section 3-C(1) also makes it clear that a firm is a dealer. So for purposes of the assessment of sales tax a firm is a unit independently of its partners (see J. B. Tandon v. Sales Tax Officer, Etawah  8 S.T.C. 459). And it should necessarily follow that where a firm manufactures oil for sale, it is the dealer-manufacturer. None of its partners can be called a dealer-manufacturer. Had the dissolved firm sold the mustard oil in question, it would have been liable to assessment under the notification. But it did not sell the oil. The oil, on its dissolution, fell to the share of Radha Krishna Maheshwari. And he sold it. He is not the dealer-manufacturer. Accordingly, he cannot be liable to tax on the sale of the oil. (1).
5. We allow this petition and quash the order of the revising authority, dated 3rd December, 1966. The petitioner shall get costs from the second respondent.