(1.) This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 25th February, 2003 passed in Writ Petition No. 4406(W) of 2002 dismissing the writ petition on the ground of absence of jurisdiction of the High Court in view of section 14 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 (1987 Act).
(2.) Mr. Hirak Mitter, learned Counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, raised two questions. First, that the writ petition could not be dismissed as not maintainable in view of section 14 of the 1987 Act barring jurisdiction of the High Court. The second is that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners, though posted at Calcutta, are not persons employed in West Bengal and thus are not subject to the West Bengal State Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1979 (WB Act). He had raised several limbs of this point, namely, that the salary of the appellants- petitioners posted at Calcutta are being paid by their employer at Chhattisgarh as such they are carrying on profession in Chhattisgarh and not in West Bengal. Even though they may be absent from Chhattisgarh still they are deemed to be employed in Chhattisgarh in view of section 3 sub-section (5) of the Madhya Pradesh Vritti Kar Adhiniyam, 1995 (MP Act), applicable in Chhattisgarh.
(3.) These are disputed by the learned Counsel for the State of West Bengal, Mrs. Seba Roy, led by Mr. Bidyut Kiran Mukherjee, Senior Advocate, on the ground that the appellants being posted at Calcutta, they are carrying on profession within the State of West Bengal. As such they are subject to the WB Act. It is immaterial whether their salary is paid by their employer at Chhattisgarh. The other point urged by Mr. Mukherjee is that section 14 of the 1987 Act creating a bar of jurisdiction of the High Court renders the writ petition not maintainable. This point of maintainability in view of section 14 of the 1987 Act found favour with the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition as not maintainable.