Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Gopal Krishna Saraf vs Deputy Commissioner on 9 July, 2018
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
1 9‐07‐2018 S.D. W.P. 18909 (W) of 2017 Gopal Krishna Saraf Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax, Lyons Range Charge and Ors.
Mr. Anil Dugar Mr. Rajarshi Chatterjee ....For the petitioner.
Mr. Abhratosh Majumder, Ld. A.A.G., Mr. P. Dudhoria Mr. Avra Majumder ...For the State.
An order dated September 27, 2016 passed by the revisional authorities is under challenge in the present writ petition.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner had produced the relevant 'C' and 'E1' Forms before the authorities for consideration. He submits that, these Forms were not taken into consideration either by the Assessing Officer or by the Appellate Authority or by the Revisional Authority in its impugned order. He draws the attention of the Court to a Circular dated October 4, 2010 and submits that, the Directorate had clarified the position with regard to Sales. None of the three adjudicating authorities had taken such circular into consideration and applied the 2 principles therein. He submits that, should the revisional authority revisit the issue, the tax incidence of the petitioner would be substantially reduced.
Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State submits that, the revisional authority did notice under Section 6(2) of the Central as well as Tax Act, 1956, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief as prayed for as it is not a sale within the meaning of Section 6(2) of the Act of 1956.
Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, I am of the view that, the impugned order does not reject the claim of the petitioner on the ground that, the sale did not take place and the transactions did not attract the provisions of Section 6(2) of the Act of 1956. It proceeds on the basis of the non‐furnishing of the declaration forms. That, with respect, is mis‐appreciation of the materials placed on record. The documents placed with the writ petition suggest that, the petitioner had produced the relevant 'C' and 'E1' forms before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer did not consider it in correct perspective. The appellate authority had also erred in appreciating the contents thereof. The revisional authority notes that, it was produced for the first time before it, which is not so. 3
In such circumstances, the impugned order is quashed. The revisional authority is requested to decide the revisional application afresh. The points raised by the parties are kept open to be decided by the revisional authority.
W.P. 18909 (W) of 2017 is disposed of accordingly. Affidavit‐in‐opposition filed in Court be taken on record. Urgent website certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the formalities.
(Debangsu Basak, J.) 4 5 6 7