CONTEMPORARY TARGETT PVT. LTD. Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, CORPORATE DIVISION AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 has been filed, challenging the impugned order of remand dated 21st April, 2010 passed by the West Bengal Commercial Taxes, Appellate and Revisional Board. The petitioner, as disclosed in the application, was involved in the business of tea auctioneering and brokering. It was previously known as Contemporary Tea Services (P) Limited. Following an application being made before the Registrar of Companies, the name of the petitioner was recorded as Contemporary Targett Limited. Following an order issued by the honourable High Court in Company Petition No. 3 of 1986, the petitioner as the transferee -company took over the tea broking business of the transferor -company namely, the Contemporary Tea Company Limited along with its assets and liabilities with effect from April 1, 1986.

(2.) IN the wake of the vesting of the rights and liabilities of the transferor -company, the petitioner submitted the returns for the four quarters ending on April 30, 1985. Contending that there were discrepancies in the accounts which had not been reconciled with the books of accounts and other registers, the Commercial Tax Officer enhanced the gross turnover to Rs. 1,06,00,00,000. The turnover tax was fixed at Rs. 11,65,29,342, imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000 and calculating interest at Rs. 81,948.

(3.) PURSUANT to the order of assessment, the matter was taken up for ex parte hearing. The Commercial Officer by an ex parte order of reassessment dated June 24, 1997 passed the identical order of assessment as had been done earlier. Aggrieved by the order of reassessment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Corporate Division. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal, upholding the order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer. Aggrieved by the order dated May 12, 2000 passed by the appellate authority, the petitioner approached the Tribunal for redressal of its grievance. In disposing of the application, the Tribunal directed the Board to dispose of the matter in the light of its direction. By an order dated April 21, 2010, the Board directed reassessment to be made in the light of its observation as recorded in the judgment. Dissatisfied with the order of remand passed by the Board, the petitioner has filed the present application for redressal of its grievance.