COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER BANKURA CHARGE Vs. GOURANGALAL CHATTERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application filed in the concerned appeal being F.M.A.T. No. 61 of 1985, which was presented on 7th January, 1985, the appellants, who were respondents in the writ proceeding, are asking for stay of operation of the order as passed by Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J., on 18th December, 1984. By such order, the learned Judge has directed, after hearing the parties, the issue of an order restraining the appellants before us from taking any steps and/or proceeding for the purpose of levy, imposition and collection of purchase tax and from withholding the issue of declaration forms and giving any effect to or taking any steps whatsoever in pursuance of the orders of assessment and notices of demand for the periods from 28th November, 1980 to 31st March, 1981 and from 1st April, 1981 to 31st March, 1982 and from further proceeding for assessment upto the period four quarters ending 31st March, 1984, till the disposal of the application, on condition that furnishing security by way of bank guarantee for Rs. 50,000 be furnished within four quarters from 18th December, 1984.

(2.) It was pointed out by Mr. Dutta, who appeared in support of this application that the writ petitioners carried mainly business inter alia of executing contracts and of purchasing goods in West Bengal for executing the contracts, apart from carrying on their business of manufacturing stone chips and timber. After setting out the different issues as raised, it was pointed out by Mr. Dutta, that a notice of demand dated 6th October, 1983, for Rs. 2,41,383.96 was served on the respondents before us, apart from a notice for a sum of Rs. 9,999.80 which was also due from them. It was Mr. Dutta's contention that against the assessment and demand notices for the concerned periods, neither any action was taken nor any appeal was preferred. But on 18th December, 1984, the concerned writ petition was moved, when the learned Judge made the order, as indicated hereinbefore.

(3.) On a reference to the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd. (1985) 1 SCC 260, it was Mr. Dutta's contentions that the learned Judge was not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case, to direct securing Rs. 50,000 and that too through a bank guarantee. In the said determination, the Honourable Supreme Court has deprecated the issue of such order as in this case on the basis of bank guarantee and it has also been indicated that when the said Court has repeatedly laid down principles of law, High Courts are bound to follow these principles under articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution of India. That apart, the Honourable Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of making interim orders or granting such orders for any commercial benefit to the writ petitioners on furnishing bank guarantee. There is no doubt or any dispute that we are bound under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, by such determination as made by the Honourable Supreme Court of India.