LAWS(CAL)-2015-1-103

CALCUTTA CHROMOTYPE PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, GROUP-J, BALLYGUNGE CHARGE & ORS

Decided On January 20, 2015
Calcutta Chromotype Private Limited Appellant
V/S
Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Group-J, Ballygunge Charge And Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against an order dated 20th November, 2014 by which the learned trial Court dismissed the writ petition with cost assessed at Rs.50,000/-. Challenging the aforesaid order the present appeal was filed by the writ petitioner.

(2.) The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows:-

(3.) For all the four quarters of the financial year 2009-2010 the hearing for assessment was conducted by the Sales Tax Officer and the hearing was concluded on 25th June, 2012. It is not in dispute that on the basis of the self-assessment the assessee already paid the amount due on account of sales tax. The case of the assessee is that he thereafter did not receive any assessment order nor any demand was received by him. However on 10th November, 2014 the respondent no.3 visited the premises of the assessee/writ petitioner and informed him the amount due on account of sales tax and the premises of the assessee was likely to be attached unless such dues were paid within 18th November, 2014. The writ petitioner/assessee thereafter made necessary enquiry but copy of the assessment order was not made available to him. He in the circumstances invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court praying, inter alia, for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to supply the petitioner all relevant documents pertaining to the claim and to direct them to forbear from taking any coercive step. Further and other reliefs were also claimed. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned trial Court holding that there was a presumption as regards service under the General Clauses Act. Challenging the order the present appeal was preferred. Operation of the order of dismissal of the writ petition was stayed and respondents were directed to refrain from taking any step for recovery subject to deposit of a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- within a week. It is not in dispute that such deposit has duly been made.