TADANYA TIMBER TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, SREERAMPUR CHARGE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987, the petitioner, Tadanya Timber Trading Private Limited, a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 carrying on business from 2/7, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata 700 020, has challenged the notices issued by the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax, Sreerampur Charge (respondent No. 1) under memo No. 259 dated October 22, 2009, memo No. 340 dated December 13, 2009 and also the order dated February 4, 2010, cancelling the registration certificate (in short, "RC") of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, at the time of granting registration and for sometime thereafter, its principal place of business was at Dankuni Station Pally, P. O. & P. S. : Dankuni, Dist. Hooghly. In February 2008, the principal place of business stood shifted to 2/7, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata 700 020, the present address. This shifting of the principal place of business was duly communicated to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Sreerampur Charge on February 27, 2008. It was requested therein that the records be transferred to the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bhawanipur Charge, as the new place of business fell within the territorial jurisdiction of that charge.

(2.) THE petitioner, as submitted in this petition, filed returns up to quarter ending December 31, 2007, in the office of the Sreerampur Charge and those were duly accepted but despite specific prayers for transferring the file to Bhawanipur Charge, the authorities concerned did not transfer the file. Hence the petitioner had gone to file the return for the period quarters ending on March 31, 2008 to Sreerampur Charge. This was in the month of May 2008. The said return was not accepted on the ground that its RC had been cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Sreerampur Charge. Unfortunately, no notice was served before cancellation and the cancellation order was not also communicated to the petitioner. However, copies of the letter intimating the cancellation of RC sent under memo No. 160, dated December 28, 2007 and order dated December 28, 2007, cancelling the RC were made available to the petitioner on July 1, 2008. This order of cancellation was challenged by the petitioner before the revisional authority, Senior Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bally Circle. Upon appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, revisional authority set aside the order dated December 28, 2007, but at the same time, gave liberty to the respondents to initiate the proceedings after observing statutory procedural formalities. Since the order dated December 28, 2007 stood set aside, the respondents were supposed to give effect of the order passed by the revisional authority. As the direction was not complied with, the petitioner by a letter dated October 21, 2009 drew the attention of respondent No. 1 about such inaction on the part of the respondents. Respondent No. 1 issued a notice for showing cause on November 17, 2009 as to why the RC would not be cancelled. This was issued under memo No. 259 dated October 22, 2009. This was duly replied to by the petitioner and the hearing was taken up on November 18, 2009. Another notice under memo No. 340 dated December 3, 2009, alleging therein that there had been no existence of the business at the original place of business, was issued to the petitioner requiring its presence on December 11, 2009. Ultimately on February 4, 2010, respondent No. 1 cancelled the RC of the petitioner with retrospective effect from October 12, 2007 on the ground that the petitioner failed to establish that it had existed at the declared place of business, i.e., Dankuni Station Pally, P. O. & P. S. Dankuni, Dist. Hooghly on October 12, 2007.

(3.) THE respondents are represented by Sri B. Majumdar, learned State Representative. It is strongly argued by the learned State Representative that there was no functional existence of the petitioner at Dankuni, Hooghly, and this fact was ascertained upon due enquiry. Even another spot enquiry was made on January 22, 2010 for coming to a conclusion. The respondent -authorities have rightly questioned the legality of the tenancy agreement to ascertain the existence of the ostensible place of business but that also shows various discrepancies. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there was nothing improper on the part of the assessing authority to cancel the RC. The effect of such cancellation was given with effect from October 12, 2007, that, is the date on which the non -existence of the dealer at his principal place of business at Dankuni, Hooghly, was detected.