Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Gd Vikash Kumar Chaudhary vs Sales Tax Officer on 30 March, 2016
1
19 30.3.2016
W.P. 5745 (W) of 2016
gd Vikash Kumar Chaudhary
Vs.
Sales Tax Officer, Narendra Dutta
Sarani Charge & Ors.
Mr. S. S. Sengupta
Mr. Rajarshi Chatterjee
..for the Petitioner
Mr. Abhratosh Majumdar
Mr. Prithu Dudhoria
..for the Respondents
The petitioning trader is a registered dealer. In course of an ongoing inquiry by the Bureau of Investigation pertaining to financial years 2014-15 and 2015-16, the petitioner acknowledged in writing on February 17, 2016 (erroneously shown to be dated "17.02.2015") that his total tax liability was Rs.20,06,939.70/- and offered to pay 60% of such amount affront and the remainder within a year since the petitioner was facing financial difficulties.
The petitioner now seeks to 2 assert that the admission in writing executed by the petitioner does not refer to any financial year nor the manner of apportionment of the tax. The petitioner also attempts to explain away the admission by saying that there is no admission to pay the tax evident from the writing of February 17, 2016, but only that the stated amount would be due as tax if the entire inter-state purchase of value in excess of Rs.4 crore specified in the writing were to be sold in this State.
The technicalities that the petitioner seeks to rely on are baseless. The writing of February 17, 2016 clearly makes out the petitioner's liability to pay a further tax of Rs.20,06,939.70/- as on the date of the execution of the writing.
However, since the inquiry or 3 investigation has not yet been completed, the payment of any money by the petitioner pursuant to such admission of February 17, 2016 will be subject to the outcome of the investigation and any order that may be passed or demand that may be raised on the petitioner thereafter. To the extent that the demand raised on the petitioner for the two financial years exceeds the sum of Rs.20,06,939.70/-, the petitioner will be entitled to challenge the same in accordance with law.
Due to the poor financial condition of the petitioner at the moment, the petitioner will only be liable to pay a sum of Rs.8 lakh against the sum of Rs.12.04 lakh promised in the letter of February 17, 2016. Since the petitioner says that garnishee proceedings have 4 already been initiated against the petitioner, any sum recovered from any third party on account of the petitioner will be counted towards the sum of Rs.8 lakh and the petitioner will make good the balance of the sum of Rs.8 lakh within a fortnight from date whereupon further coercive proceedings against the petitioner will not be continued till such time that the inquiry and investigation are completed and an appropriate order passed thereupon and a demand raised on the petitioner in accordance with law.
In the event the claim for the two years following the investigation is in excess of Rs.20,06,939.70/-, the petitioner will be entitled to challenge the same in accordance with law. It will be for the petitioner to 5 apportion the amount of Rs.20,06,939.70/- in respect of the two years at such stage while challenging any demand or the like for further payment.
W.P. 5745 (W) of 2016 is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to operate the petitioner's bank account after the sum of Rs.8 lakh in terms of this order has been paid by the petitioner to the department. Such right to operate the bank account will be subject to any further garnishee notice that may be issued by the department in accordance with law.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite 6 formalities.
(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) 7