SANTOSH KUMAR CHOWDHURY AND ANOTHER Vs. SENIOR JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ASANSOL CIRCLE AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER No. 1, Sri Santosh Kumar Chowdhury, carries on a proprietary business under the name and style of M/s. Sindhu Coal Traders at Amrasota More, Ranigung, P. O. Searsole Rajbari, District Burdwan and petitioner No. 2 is the authorized representative holding power of attorney. According to the petitioner, he filed a revision petition on August 11, 2006, before the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Durgapur Zone (in short, "respondent No. 2") against the appellate order dated June 20, 2006 of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Asansol Circle (in short, "DCCT/ASC") passed in appeal Case No. A -54/05 -06 in relation to the assessment period four quarters ending on March 31, 2003. The said revision petition was registered as revision Case No. 12/DP/06 -07. It has been submitted by petitioner No. 1 that during pendency of the revision petition, he, on December 22, 2008, filed an application in form 1 under the West Bengal Sales Tax (Settlement of Dispute) Act, 1999 (in short, "the SOD Act") for settlement of arrear taxes in disputes. Along with the said application, a challan showing payment of Rs. 12,874 being the requisite amount for seeking settlement of disputes was also filed. Upon such application, petitioner No. 1 received a provisional certificate granted by DCCT/ASC in terms of provision of section 8(1) of the SOD Act. This certificate was issued on December 24, 2008. The petitioner on the same date by a letter intimated respondent No. 2, that he had submitted an application before DCCT/ASC praying for settlement of disputes in respect of arrear taxes and disputes in relation to the assessment period four quarters ending on March 31, 2003. However, on January 2, 2009, the petitioner received an order passed by respondent No. 2 in respect of the revision Case No. 12/DP/06 -07 as referred to hereinabove. It appeared from the said order that respondent No. 2 confirmed the appellate order though he had been duly informed that the petitioner had filed an application in form 1 praying for settlement of the disputes of arrear taxes under the SOD Act. Following this, the petitioner on February 6, 2009, received an intimation from Senior Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Asansol Circle (in short, "respondent No. 1") communicating that his application in form 1 filed under the SOD Act had been rejected.

(2.) IN this petition filed under section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987, the petitioners have challenged the order dated June 18, 2008 passed by respondent No. 2 and the order passed by respondent No. 1 rejecting the application in form 1 as communicated under memo No. 2360/DC(AS) dated January 29, 2009.

(3.) SRI B. Majumdar, learned State Representative appearing on behalf of the respondents, has submitted that the date of hearing was fixed on May 29, 2008 and not on September 29, 2008. The said date has wrongly been quoted in the order dated June 18, 2008, perhaps due to some typographical error and this date was known to the advocate of the petitioner who appeared on April 30, 2008 as it appears in the signature of the said advocate in the margin of the order sheet of the relevant revision case records. There was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner on May 29, 2008. The order was reserved on that date and on June 18, 2008, the said order was passed. However, the order was despatched on December 3, 2008. It is admitted by the learned State Representative that there was delay in sending the order dated June 18, 2008 passed by respondent No. 2 but because of this delay, it should not be construed that the order in question was anti -dated as has been alleged by the petitioner. It cannot be inferred that the order in question was not passed actually on the purported date and it is also admitted by the learned State Representative that had this been communicated earlier, the petitioner would not have been granted provisional certificate under section 8 of the SOD Act in form 2. DCCT/ASC also admitted that since he had no knowledge about the disposal of the revision case filed before respondent No. 2, provisional certificate under the SOD Act had been issued. There was no impropriety on the part of respondent No. 1 in rejecting the provisional certificate issued to the petitioner.