Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd vs Joint Commissioner on 18 January, 2018
Author: Subrata Talukdar
Bench: Subrata Talukdar
1
18.01.18
189 Ct. No.29
Sws.M
W.P. 27753(W) of 2017
[Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner,
Commercial Taxes, Ultadanga Charge & Ors.]
Mr. S.K. Chakraborty
Mr. Piyal Gupta
....for the Petitioner
Mr. Abhratosh Majumder
Mr. Prithu Dudhoria
Mr. Avra Mazumder
...for the Respondents
Party/Parties appear in the order of their name/names as printed above in the cause-title.
Mr. Chakraborty, learned Counsel appears for the petitioner and challenges the order of the West Bengal Commercial Taxes Appellate and Revisional Board (for short the Board) in Revision Case No. 2288 of 2015-2016 dated 7th September, 2016.
The short submission of Mr. Chakraborty is that without the petitioner being granted an opportunity of hearing before the Board, the Board could not have held that the petitioner is a habitual defaulter by its attitude. 2 Mr. Chakraborty further points out that due to bona fide reasons, learned Advocate for the petitioner could not be present before the Board at the time of hearing on the 6th of September, 2016. Mr. Chakraborty accordingly seeks an opportunity to present the stand of the petitioner before the Board.
Mr. Dudhoria, learned Counsel led by Mr. Abhratosh Majumder, learned Senior Counsel appear for the Revenue/Respondents and resist the contention of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not taken timely steps to be represented before the Board.
Having heard the parties and considering the materials placed, this Court is of the view that Mr. Chakraborty's submissions merit consideration. The order impugned of the Board fails to carry sustainable reasons.
This Court accordingly requests the Board to conduct the hearing afresh expeditiously within a period 3 suitable to its diary without granting unnecessary adjournments to the parties.
It is made clear that all points are kept open. Since Affidavits are not invited, allegations made are deemed to be denied.
W.P. 27753(W) of 2017 stands accordingly disposed of.
Affidavit-of-Service filed in Court today be taken on record.
Only in the backdrop of the above direction, the order of 7th September, 2016 stands set aside.
Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, will be made available to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Subrata Talukdar, J.) 4