1991 (3) TMI 385 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to ex parte assessment under section 11 of Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 for specific periods without notice served to the applicant.
Contention regarding the previous application under article 226 being premature and subsequent application being transferred to the Tribunal.
Acceptance of the present application under article 226 despite earlier observations by honorable Mr. Justice B.C. Basak.
Decision to set aside the impugned assessment orders and quash certificate cases before respondent No. 2.
Granting liberty to respondent No. 3 for fresh assessment if deemed fit.

Analysis:
The case involved a challenge to an ex parte assessment under section 11 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 for specific periods where the applicant alleged no notice was served. The applicant sought a writ of mandamus to restrain the respondents from giving effect to the orders passed by the Commercial Tax Officer. The contention raised by the State Representative was twofold. Firstly, it was argued that a previous application under article 226 was premature as per the observations of honorable Mr. Justice B.C. Basak. Secondly, it was contended that the present application did not lie as per the direction given in the previous application. The State Representative further argued that the proceedings before respondent No. 2 should remain stayed until the disposal of appeals against the assessment orders.

The Tribunal, after hearing both parties, rejected the contentions raised by the State Representative. It was noted that despite the earlier observations by honorable Mr. Justice B.C. Basak regarding the premature nature of the previous application, the subsequent application had been admitted by the High Court and transferred to the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the refusal of notice by respondent No. 2 based on the applicant's letter dated November 14, 1983, was unchallenged. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the present application should be entertained, and the impugned assessment orders were to be set aside.

As a result of the decision, the Tribunal allowed the application, setting aside the impugned assessment orders for the specified periods and quashing the certificate cases before respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 3 was granted the liberty to conduct a fresh assessment against the applicant for the relevant periods in accordance with the law. The main application was disposed of with no order as to costs, thereby concluding the matter before the Tribunal.