HARIMATI SEN Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two appeals, the appellants have challenged the propriety of the judgment'of a learned single Judge of this Court discharging the rule nisi obtained by them on their application under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) One Sambhu Charan Sen, since deceased, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, was the owner of a petrol pump situated at Battala Chowk, Midnapore, and carried on the business of motor spirit and allied materials in the name and style of M/s. Sambhu Charan Sen. He had a dealership with Esso Eastern Inc. He was the sole proprietor of the said firm and was a retail dealer under the Bengal Motor Spirit Sales Taxation Act, 1941. He died on 15th June, 1971.

(3.) After his death, the dealership standing in his name with Esso Eastern Inc. was terminated and it was granted to one of his sons, Arun Kumar Sen, appellant No. 6, with effect from llth August, 1971. It is not disputed that the appellants, being the legal representatives of the said Sambhu Charan Sen, carried on the business of motor spirit and allied materials up to 15th November, 1971. Thereafter, they transferred the business to appellant No. 6, Arun Kumar Sen. Respondent No. 1, the Commercial Tax Officer, Midnapore Charge, by his letter dated 17th November, 1971, transferred the licence of the business in favour of appellant No. 6 with effect from 15th November, 1971.