Calcutta High Court
Nirmal Wires (P) Ltd vs Sales Tax Officer on 11 February, 2010
Author: I. P. Mukerji
Bench: I. P. Mukerji
1
WP No. 218 of 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
NIRMAL WIRES (P) LTD. .. Petitioner
Versus
SALES TAX OFFICER, BAXIRHAT CHECK POST .. Respondents
& ORS.
For Petitioner : Mr.Sumit Chakraborty, Adv. For Respondents : None BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE I. P. MUKERJI Date : 11th February, 2010.
The Court : Even at the second call, none appears for the respondents. This writ application challenges an order of penalty passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Baxirhar Check Post dated 2nd January, 2006 under Section 77 of the Value Added Tax, 2003. Prior seizure before imposition of penalty has also been challenged.
This writ application was entertained on the basis of a Division Bench judgment of our court in the case of Sajjan Kumar Sharma Vs. Commercial Tax Officer & Others, reported in Vol.42 (2003) Sales Tax Advices at Page-72.
I do not think the issues before that court and the issues before this court are similar at all. The goods in question in this matter appear to have been searched and seized on the suspicion that there was violation of Value Added Tax, 2003 by clandestine sale within West Bengal. No power was exercised under the Central Sales Tax Act. Therefore, this Division Bench decision of our court has no application.2
But because of this Division Bench decision, as I have said before, this writ petition was entertained and affidavits also have been filed.
As questions of fact have to be investigated in detail, I have no option but to relegate the writ petitioner before the alternative remedy of West Bengal Taxation Tribunal to which , it is submitted, a revisional application under section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 against the order imposing penalty lies.
However, I take note of the fact that the order of penalty was passed on 2nd January, 2006 and this writ application was filed on 24th January, 2006 within the period of limitation for filing the revisional application before the Tribunal. Considering the aforesaid, I have to relegate the writ petitioner to the alternative remedy. But the period of pendency of this writ application i.e. from 24th January, 2006 till date will be excluded in calculating the period of limitation in the revisional application before the Tribunal.
The writ is accordingly disposed of.
All parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings.
(I. P. MUKERJI, J.)
km