Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Corporation Of India Limited & Anr vs Commissioner Of Commercial Tax & Ors on 4 August, 2014
Author: Harish Tandon
Bench: Harish Tandon
1
22 04.08.14 W.P. 22421 (W) of 2014
akd
Security, Printing and Minting
Corporation of India Limited & Anr.
Vs.
Commissioner of Commercial Tax & Ors.
--------
Mr. Atis Dipankar Roy, Ms. Saswati Chatterjee, Mr. Sujit Singh, Mr. Arup Nath Bhattacharyya.
... for the petitioners.
Mr. Abhratosh Majumdar, Mr. Prithu Dudhoria.
... for the respondents.
The challenge is made to a notice dated 30th June, 2014 issued by the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Alipore Charge, primarily on the ground that contemplation to impose penalty under Sub-section 2 of Section 46 of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act is bad ab initio because of deletion of the said provision by the Finance Act of 2012.
According to the petitioners, the said notice is ex facie bad having issued for the purpose, which was omitted and/or deleted by the subsequent amendment Act.
The attention of this Court was drawn to the provisions of Section 6 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 providing the remedy before the Tribunal pertaining to the dispute in relation to levy, assessment, collection and enforcement of any tax under the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act.
2It is tried to be contended by the petitioners that the imposition of penalty does not come either within the purview of levy or assessment and, therefore, the Tribunal has no power to adjudicate the disputes as raised in this writ petition.
This Court does not find the contention so raised by the petitioners to be correct. The penalty cannot stand independently and is inter-related or inter-connected with some lapses or omissions; both statutory and otherwise provided under the said Act.
The petitioners have the remedy under Section 6 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 and have been wrongly advised to move before this Court.
The petitioners appear to have proceeded on wrong advice and because of the existence of alternative efficacious remedy available to the petitioners, this Court does not intend to interfere with the impugned order by invoking the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition is thus dismissed as not maintainable.
The petitioners shall be at liberty to challenge the impugned notice before the appropriate forum.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied within three days from the date of such application.
(HARISH TANDON, J.) 3