Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Qvc Exports Private Limited vs Senior Joint Commissioner Of ... on 26 November, 2018
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
z 1
16. 26.11. W.P. 22898 (W) of 2018
Sd3 2018
QVC Exports Private Limited.
Versus
Senior Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,
Behala Circle & Ors.
Mr. Shovan Ghosh
Mr. Sandip Choraria
Mr. Akshat Agarwal
...for the petitioner.
Mr. Abhrotosh Mazumder, Ld. A.A.G.
Mr. S. Mukherjee
Mr. D. Ghosh
...for the State
A revision order dated December 9, 2016 is under
challenge in the present writ petition.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner
submits that, although the calculations and reports were
called for, the revisional authority did not take the same
into consideration while passing the impugned order.
He draws attention of the Court to the contents of
the impugned order and submits that, the revisional
authority failed to take into consideration the report
called for.
The respondents are represented by the Additional
Advocate General. He submits that, the impugned order is dated December 9, 2016. There is no explanation for to the period of time taken to move the writ petition. Moreover, the petitioner was present before the revisional authority. There is no cause for interference that made out in the writ petition.
Having heard the rival contentions of the parties, it appears from the records that, the revisional authority called for a report on the rival claims. The revisional authority ought to have taken into consideration such z 2 report while passing the impugned order. The revisional authority proceeded not to grant the adjournment as prayed for on the fateful day. There is no infirmity in the revisional authority refusing to grant adjournment. However, the revisional authority ought to have taken into consideration the report called for and disposed of the revisional application on merits. The impugned order is quashed on such ground alone. The revisional authority is requested to consider and decide the revisional application, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. It is clarified that, the revisional authority is at liberty to refuse any prayer for adjournment if it deems so appropriate.
W.P. No.22898(W) of 2018 is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Urgent certified Website copy of this order, if applied, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)