Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rajendra Kumar Agarwal vs The Sales Tax Officer on 2 January, 2018
Author: Aniruddha Bose
Bench: Aniruddha Bose
1 14 02.01.2018 CHC Ct. No.11 M.A.T.1241 of 2017 C.A.N.7071 of 2017 C.A.N.10428 of 2017 Rajendra Kumar Agarwal Vs. The Sales Tax Officer, Salkia Charge & ors.
Mr. Nilendu Chakraborty, Mr. Souvik Dutta ...for the appellant Mr. Abhratosh Majumdar, Ld. A.A.G. Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Mr. Avra Mazumder ...for the State In Re: C.A.N.10428 of 2017 The application registered as C.A.N.10428 of 2017 is for recalling an order of dismissal of application no.C.A.N.7071 of 2017.
We have gone through this application and are satisfied that the reasons disclosed in paragraph 4 thereof constitutes sufficient cause for recalling the order of dismissal. The order passed by this Court on 25th October, 2017 is accordingly recalled. Let C.A.N.7071 of 2017 be restored to its original file and number.
2In Re: M.A.T.1241 of 2017 (C.A.N.7071 of 2017) The appellant/writ petitioner is primarily aggrieved by an order of the Fast Track Revisional Authority in a revision case under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The appellant/writ petitioner was assessed on the basis that the declaration in Form - 'C' was not proper and the appellant/writ petitioner was imposed tax under the aforesaid statute on that account. The appellant/writ petitioner preferred an appeal before the statutory authority and the appeal was rejected. Admitted position is that the appellant/writ petitioner did not appear before the appellate forum. Before the revisional forum the appellant/writ petitioner was represented but the revisional authority found no ground to interfere with the order of the appellate authority so far as the same related to improper declarations. Report was called for and the appellate authority found on the basis of that report that no claim under Section 8(1)(b) of the Act was allowable as the sale bills produced in support of the declaration in Form-'C' were showing "Self" as consignee/purchasing dealer.
3
The appellant's/writ petitioner's writ petition before the learned First Court was dismissed. The appellant/writ petitioner took a point that in all the declarations, it was not being shown as consignee/purchasing dealer. The learned First Court declined to permit the appellant/writ petitioner to raise that point as that point was never raised before the appellate authority or the revisional authority.
Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner however submits that all the records were produced before the revisional authority and scrutiny of the records would have revealed that consignee was not shown as "Self" in many of these cases. We are however being invited into the factual territory by Mr. Chakraborty on a point which was never raised before the statutory forum. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the learned First Court had come to its decision rightly applying the established principle of law. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned First Court.
Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel has further urged that the question of declaration forms 4 containing "Self" as consignee/purchasing dealer had come up for the first time before revisional authority and hence there was no scope of urging that point before the appellate authority. The revisional authority has however given factual finding on this issue. No material is available from which we can come to a decision that such finding was perverse.
By consent of the learned Advocates of the parties we taking up the appeal and the stay petition together for hearing. Mr. Majumdar, learned Additional Advocate General has waived service of notice of appeal. All other formalities for making the appeal ready stand dispensed with.
Both the appeal and the stay petition are dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(Aniruddha Bose, J.) (Amitabha Chatterjee, J.) 5