PRIYA CHEMICALS Vs. WEST BENGAL COMMERCIAL TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this matter rule was issued but drawing up of rule was dispensed with as the learned lawyers for the respondents insisted so and obtained direction for filing affidavits but no affidavit nor any power has been filed. On November 21, 2000 the matter came up for hearing before me and on that date I extended time to file affidavit-in-opposition. Despite extension of time no affidavit-in-opposition was filed ultimately, the matter was heard ex parte on February 13, 2002 and again on June 28, 2002. Neither on the aforesaid two dates learned lawyers for the State appear, nor to speak of filing any affidavit-in-opposition. Under such circumstances I had no option but to consider this matter, on the basis of the allegations made in the petition. In this matter three orders of the respective hierarchy of the sales tax authorities have been challenged. The said three orders were passed, firstly, by the Commercial Tax Officer, Lyons Range, 14 Beliaghata Main Road, Calcutta-15 being the respondent No. 1, secondly by the Assistant Commercial Taxes, Chowringhee Circle on September 22, 1988 and lastly by the Appellate and the Revisional Board being respondent No. 1 on June 5, 1997 and, prayed for withdrawal and/or cancellation of the demand made in form 4. Ordinarily, in these types of matter in which three quasi-judicial authorities have screened the petitioner's grievance and claim, the writ court does not interfere, however, when the rule was issued by the Court, I am duty-bound to examine firstly as to legality and validity in the eye of law of the aforesaid three impugned orders and secondly, the demand made by the respondents. Without narration of the short fact in this case it would be inappropriate to decide this matter.

(2.) The same are as stated hereinafter. The petitioner being the dealer, seller and exporter of chemical goods purchased certain chemical items from an Andhra Pradesh dealer on May 9, 1981. At the time of purchase of the said materials, the petitioner duly furnished necessary declaration in form C and also paid 4 per cent central sales tax to A.P. dealer against this transaction. Therefore, according to the petitioner this is an inter-State sale and/or transaction of the aforesaid goods. On way to West Bengal from Andhra Pradesh by truck the goods were sold by the petitioner by endorsing the lorry receipts (documents of title to goods) in favour of Indian Oil Corporation, Haldia Refinery, Haldia, Midnapur, who in its turn duly furnished and/or issued this declaration in C form to the petitioner as a conclusive proof of second sale. A.P. dealer issued E-I form in their own stationery authenticated and counter-signed by Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Goodivadda, Andhra Pradesh, in 1985, covering a transaction of May 9, 1981 of Rs. 64,35,000. Thereafter the petitioner duly furnished returns of the aforesaid transaction and claimed exemption from payment of any further tax on the aforesaid turnover. However, respondent No. 1 disallowed such claim for exemption. On appeal being preferred the appellate authority with reasons upheld the order of the Commercial Tax Officer, petitioner unsuccessfully pursued the statutory remedy by filing a revisional application before the revising authority, who too dismissed the petitioner's application and upheld the order of both the subordinate officials.

(3.) Commercial Tax Officer being respondent No. 2 disallowed the claim for exemption because of non-production of statutory declarations in form E-I while the appellate authority gave reasons for rejection of the petitioner's claim that by Government Order No. 384, Rev. (S) dated April 18, 1985 of the A.P. Government the Rule 12(3) of the Central Sales Tax (Andhra Pradesh) Rules, 1957 was amended for use of stationery E-I form and E-II form with effect from April 18, 1985. In absence of any specification the retrospective effect of the aforesaid amended rule cannot be given. The transactions involved in the appeal were related to the year 1981. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to cover its transaction of sales under Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 in respect of the period which is about 4 years older than the amendment of the appropriate Rule made by A.P. Government.