M.N.Roy, J. - (1.)M/s. Eastern Trading Company, a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and which at the material time had the petitioners and one Smt. Kankan Wari Baid as partners, carried on the business of selling various articles and luxury goods, apart from dealing with hire-purchase agreement of those articles and were registered dealers both under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (hereinafter referred to as the said Bengal Act) and also the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the said Central Act). The said Smt. Kankan Wari Baid died on or about 9th May, 1973 and it has been stated that after her death, her heirs and legal representatives did not join the petitioners in the said partnership business and the intimation of carrying on such business by the petitioners, was given to the respondent No. 1, the Commercial Tax Officer concerned.
(2.)It was the case of the petitioners that thereafter four applications were moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and validity of the assessment orders for the periods of three quarters ending with 30th September, 1973, four quarters ending Chait Sudi, 2018 and four quarters ending December, 1972 and on such Civil Rules Nos. 7660 (W)-7663 (W) of 1975 Bachhraj Baid v. Commercial Tax Officer [1975] 36 STC 101 were issued and those rules, after hearing, were made absolute, whereby the assessment orders were set aside. It has been stated further that thereafter, against those orders making the rules absolute, four appeals being F.M.A.T. Nos. 1480-1483 of 1975 were filed and in those appeals, applications for stay of operation of the orders were also made, which came up for consideration on 19th June, 1975 and the learned Appeal Court was pleased to extend the stay order as issued, for a limited period and also to direct the petitioners to give the names of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Kankan Wari Baid to Mr. Moni Bhusan Sarkar, who at that time was appearing for the appellants, so that the assessment in question, could be made and completed in accordance with law. With such observations, the applications and the appeals were disposed of and it has been stated further that the other findings as made, by the learned Trial Judge, were affirmed.
(3.)It has then be alleged that the respondents, not being satisfied with the orders as mentioned above, and in order to compel the petitioners to close down their business, issued a memo dated 16th June, 1975 directing them to appear before the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, respondent No. 2, and to show cause why security for Rs. 10,00,000.00 should not be demanded from the petitioners under Section 7(4a)(i) of the said Bengal Act and it has also been stated that the petitioners on 7th of July, 1975 again moved an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the legality and validity of such notice, whereupon a rule and order of injunction till the disposal of the same were issued. The petitioners have further alleged that they were surprised then to receive a notice in form IX in Review Case No. 5/75-76 proposing to pass an order of substituting the names of the heirs and legal representatives of the said deceased partner Smt. Kankan Wari Baid in her place as stated in accordance with the order as made by this Court, the particulars whereof, have been mentioned hereinbefore. It was their case that this Court neither in the concerned Civil Rules nor in the Appeals, gave any direction to substitute the names of the heirs and legal representatives of the said Kankan Wari Baid in her place and they further bona fide believed that the Commercial Tax Officer, respondent No. 1, borne grudge against them, as they moved this Court against the illegal assessment order, which was set aside and so also against the notice demanding security as mentioned above.