2002 (2) TMI 1288 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of the West Bengal Commercial Tax Appellate and Revisional Board in dismissing the petitioner's application for revision for default.
2. Justification of the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes in rejecting the petitioner's application without giving an opportunity of hearing.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Justification of the West Bengal Commercial Tax Appellate and Revisional Board in Dismissing the Petitioner's Application for Revision for Default

The petitioner, a private limited company dealing in wine, challenged the order dated October 24, 1997, by the West Bengal Commercial Tax Appellate and Revisional Board (respondent No. 1), claiming it was illegal and violated the principles of natural justice. The petitioner argued that they were not properly notified about the hearing date, as mandated by rule 278 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995. The Board dismissed the revision case for default, citing that notice was sent by registered post on September 22, 1997, and also posted on the notice board. However, the petitioner claimed they never received the notice.

The Tribunal examined the provisions of rule 278 and the presumption of service by registered post. It concluded that the Board was justified in its actions. The Tribunal agreed with the State Representative that the affixation of the notice on the notice board was an additional step and did not indicate doubt about the service by registered post. The Tribunal found no evidence to counter the legal presumption of service, such as an affidavit from the postman. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the Board's dismissal of the revision for default was lawful and decided this issue against the petitioner.

The Tribunal also noted that the petitioner had a remedy under the West Bengal Commercial Taxes Appellate and Revisional Board Regulations, 1995, to file a petition supported by an affidavit explaining their non-appearance, which they did not pursue. The petitioner was advised to seek this remedy if desired.

Issue 2: Justification of the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes in Rejecting the Petitioner's Application Without Giving an Opportunity of Hearing

The petitioner also challenged the order dated May 30, 2000, by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (respondent No. 3), rejecting their application under the West Bengal Sales Tax (Settlement of Dispute) Act, 1999. The rejection was based on the fact that the revision case was already dismissed on October 24, 1997, making the petitioner ineligible to apply for settlement.

The Tribunal examined the provisions of the Settlement of Dispute Act, 1999, and found that an application for settlement requires a pending appeal or revision. Since the revision was dismissed in 1997, the petitioner's application was defective at the outset. The Tribunal held that there was no requirement to provide a hearing before rejecting the application at this initial verification stage. The necessity of a hearing arises only at a later stage when adversely affecting the applicant, as per section 8(2) of the Act.

The Tribunal acknowledged a procedural lapse where the petitioner was not initially sent a copy of the rejection order but found this did not affect the legality of the order. The Tribunal concluded that the rejection order dated May 30, 2000, was valid and lawful, and no illegality was committed by not intimating the petitioner before passing such an order.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal held that both the orders dated October 24, 1997, and May 30, 2000, were lawful and did not suffer from any illegality. The application was dismissed without any order as to costs.

Application dismissed.

D. BHATTACHARYYA (Technical Member).-I agree.

← Previous Next →