HARADHAN DHARA Vs. C T O ALIPORE CHARGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case and case No. 287 of 1999 have been taken up together for hearing because identical issues are involved. By the instant applications the applicant challenges the appellate and revisional orders passed in the context of the assessment orders. The applicant is a manufacturer of carbon paper having its manufacturing unit at Ichapur (Howrah). In furnishing returns he had been regularly claiming exemption under Rule 3(66a) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 (in short, "the 1941 Rules"). Carbon paper being a notified commodity under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954 (in short, "the 1954 Act") up to May 31, 1987, the applicant applied on May 12, 1986 for eligibility certificate (EC) under Section 4 -AA of the 1954 Act. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Howrah Circle (respondent No. 2) rejected his prayer. After an unsuccessful bid before the revisional authority (Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes), the applicant moved this Tribunal against such rejection order ; but this Tribunal too rejected the prayer. He then filed a special leave petition (S.L.P.) before the Supreme Court and the S.L.P. was dismissed on April 27, 1992. The Commercial Tax Officer, Sibpur Charge, Howrah (respondent No. 1) by his orders dated December 30, 1991 assessed the applicant for the periods from June 27, 1987 to July 4, 1987 (vide case No. RN -287 of 1999) and from July 5, 1987 to December 31, 1987 (vide case No. RN -288 of 1999), levying tax on all sale transactions of the applicant on the ground that the applicant was not granted EC till date. Against the assessment orders the applicant preferred two appeals along with stay petitions before the respondent No. 2. The appellate authority by a combined order rejected the appeals on the ground of non -payment of admitted tax. In disposing of the revision -application the West Bengal Commercial Taxes Appellate and Revisional Board (in short, "the Board") affirmed the appellate order. Aggrieved by such decision the applicant has come up with the instant application seeking remedy,

(2.) MR . R.K. Das, learned Advocate for the applicant, challenges the appellate order as well as the Board's order on the ground that the same are arbitrary and illegal. His main contention is that since the applicant never admitted any tax liability at any stage, the question of payment of anything as admitted tax prior to the filing of the appeals against the assessment orders could not arise at all. He points out that the applicant has always maintained that he is entitled to tax exemption under Section 4 -AA of the 1954 Act and/or under Rule 3(66a) of the 1941 Rules, as the case may be, in respect of sales of the products of his industrial unit. Mr. Das further adds that the applicant's plea of tax exemption was not finally settled because of the pendency of the dispute relating to the plea before the successive forums and that even when the appeal was filed against the assessment order the applicant's claim of tax exemption remained sub judice since the applicant's S.L.P. was pending before the Supreme Court. He, therefore, argues that there being no admitted tax liability at any point of time, the order rejecting appeal on the ground of non -payment of admitted tax is untenable.

(3.) MR . D. Gangopadhyay, learned State Representative, counters Mr. Das's plea with the reasoning that since all the statutory forums competent to give verdict held in succession that the applicant was not entitled to the benefit of tax exemption under Section 4 -AA of the 1954 Act, the applicant could not escape his tax liability on his sales and hence, the applicant's deliberate act of non -payment of tax will definitely attract the mischief of the first proviso to Section 12(1) of the 1954 Act.