Proprietorship penalty cannot be duplicated on both firm and proprietor; separate levy was set aside as double penalty.

A proprietorship concern has no separate legal identity from its proprietor, so a penalty imposed on the firm operates in substance as a penalty on the proprietor. On that reasoning, imposing a further separate penalty on the individual proprietor amounted to impermissible double penalty and could not stand. The additional penalty was held illegal and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty imposed on a proprietorship firm and separately on its proprietor amounted to impermissible double penalty.

Analysis: A proprietorship concern has no separate legal identity from its proprietor, and the same principle applies to the rights and obligations flowing from the business carried on in that name. Penalty imposed on the firm is, in substance, penalty on the proprietor. On the same reasoning, a partnership firm is not a legal entity distinct from the partners for the purpose of fastening liability in the manner attempted here. Since the liability had already been visited on the concern, separate penalty on the individual proprietor could not stand.

Conclusion: The separate penalty on the appellant was illegal and was set aside.

---