Calcutta High Court
Whirlpool Of India Ltd. (Kelvinator) vs Asstt.Comm on 24 August, 2016
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
WP No. 1995 of 2001
WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD. (KELVINATOR)
Versus
ASSTT.COMM., COMMERCIAL TAXES
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK
Date : 24th August, 2016.
Appearance:
Mr. Mainak Bose, Adv.
Mr. Abhratosh Majumder, Adv.
Government Pleader, Mr. T.M. Siddiqui, Adv.
Mr. K. Chatterjee, Adv.
The Court :- The petitioner has challenged an order passed under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with Section 11E(2) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 dated April 11, 2001.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted referring to an order dated May 18, 2006 passed in Case No. RN-325/99 (Whirlpool of India Ltd.-Versus-Deputy CCT, Corporate Division & 3 Ors.) that, the learned Tribunal has struck down the notice under Section 11E(2) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 as also the consequential order passed thereon. He has submitted that, the order of the Tribunal being passed in respect of the same assessee and the State Authorities having accepted such order of Tribunal, similar notices and the consequential order thereon are impugned in the present writ petition.
The same should be struck down.
Learned Government Pleader has submitted on instructions that, since the State has not assailed the order of the Tribunal necessary orders may be passed in the present writ petition. 2
The petitioner has challenged a notice issued under the Deputy Commissioner Commercial Taxes, Corporate Division asking the petitioner to show cause as to why deemed assessment for the years ending March 31, 1990, on March 31, 1991 and on March 31, 1992 should not be re-opened. The Deputy Commissioner has also passed a composite order dated June 29, 1999 re-opening those assessments. The petitioner had challenged the same before the Tribunal in case No. RN-325/99 (Whirlpool of India Ltd-Versus-Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax & 3 ors.). By an order dated May 18, 2006 the Tribunal had set aside such notices as also the composite order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The State has not assailed such order of the Tribunal dated May 18, 2006.
In the present case the petitioner had assailed similar notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner as also the similar order dated April 11, 2001.
In such circumstances, the impugned notice of the Deputy Commissioner as also the impugned order dated April 11, 2001 are set aside.
WP No. 1995 of 2001 is disposed of. No order as to costs.
(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.) snn.