SOURENDRA NATH DUTT Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule was issued at the instance of the petitioner against certain orders of assessment made by the commercial Tax Officer, Krishnagar, for the periods 1953-54, 1954-55, 1956-57 and 1957-58. The case of the petitioner briefly is that he carries on a business under the name and style of "west bengal Construction Company" in Krishnagar in the district of Nadia from november 1949. In the same month he was entrusted by the Executive engineer, Consturction Division, Nadia, to supply labour only for the making of certain quantity of bricks. This was in pursuance of a tender which was invited by the said Executive Engineer. It is stated that the sum and substance of the said contract was that the Government would supply all necessary materials for the manufacture of bricks and all that the petitioner had to do was to supply working labour. On the basis of this contract the petitioner from time to time obtained certain amounts from the said Executive engineer. In course of such execution of the said contract the Commercial tax Officer, Krishnagar, adopted assessment proceeding against the petitioner and assessed him to Sale Tax from the period 1949-50 onwards. The petitioner being aggrieved by such assessment preferred an appeal before the appellate authority which still remains undisposed. Then again the petitioner against several assessment orders made an application to this court under article 226 of the Constitution for quashing such orders on the ground that on the basis of the said contract between the petitioner and the Executive Engineer no sale was involved. The petitioner was a labour contractor and thus he was not liable to be assessed as a dealer. A Rule was issued being Civil Rule No. 1547 of 1957 by this Court which was ultimately made absolute by consent of parties as follows :-"this Rule is made absolute and the matter is sent back to the Commercial tax Officer concerned for him to find out whether any sale of any materials took place between S. N. Dutta and Co. , and the Government of west Bengal or any other person and the price, if any, paid therefor. There will be no order as to costs. "

(2.) IT is stated by the petitioner that in spite of the directions given in the said order there was fresh assessment by the respondent No. 2 for the aforesaid subsequent periods without any finding as to whether any sale of any materials took place between s. N. Dutt and Co. , and the Government of west Bengal or any other person and the price, if any, paid therefor. After the said assesstment it also appears that certain certificate proceedings were adopted for recovery of the assessed sales Tax for the aforesaid period. That is how the petitioner felt aggrieved and came up to this Court and obtained the Rule. The main grievance of the petitioner in this Rule is that the Commercial Tax Officer again failed to find out as to whether there was any sale by the petitioner and wrongly made assessment for the disputed periods against the petitioner without complying with the directions given by this Court in that Rule.

(3.) MR. Banerjee, learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner contended that the question being identical, it was clearly obligatory upon the Commercial tax Officer to find out whether any sale took place. The Commercial tax Officer took notice of the said Civil Rule but failed to implement the directions. This was highly arbitrary and only reveals the perfunctory nature of assessment that is made by these officers.