9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 780X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he hearing was closed for passing order. Rather the order was actually passed on the following date, i.e., on September 10, 2008. As such, it would be fair and reasonable if the petitioner was allowed one more opportunity to appear before respondent No. 3 of being heard. Accordingly, we set aside the order dated September 10, 2008 of respondent No. 3 with a direction to allow the petitioner one more opportunity of being heard. - - - - - Dated:- 6-2-2009 - SAIKH ABDUL MOTALEB AND DEB KUMAR CHAKRABORTI, JJ. DEB KUMAR CHAKRABORTI (Technical Member). By this petition filed under section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987, the petitioner has challenged the ex parte revisional order dated September 10, 2008 passed by the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u of Rs. 49,787. The petitioner again filed revision application before the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, West Bengal, respondent No. 3. By an ex parte order dated September 10, 2008 respondent No. 3 confirmed the order of the authority below. Being aggrieved the petitioner has filed this revision application before this Tribunal. Mr. S. K. Chakraborty, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the admitted unregistered purchase is Rs. 7,77,260, but the estimation of 30 per cent of the expenses on printing and stationery, consumable stores and power and fuel is unreasonable and arbitrary. It is claimed that the expenses on printing and stationery covered the expenses of cost of xerox, cost of printing of letter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to the petitioner of being heard. We have perused the revisional case records produced by the learned State Representative. The petitioner filed the revision application on July 11, 2006 against the order of the ACCT/BB dated April 25, 2006. The hearing was initially fixed on August 31, 2007. Thereafter the hearing was adjourned to May 20, 2008, July 17, 2008 and finally to September 9, 2008. None appeared on September 9, 2008 and no petition for time was also filed. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate of the petitioner, has claimed that one Mr. Indrajit Guha, learned advocate after attending a case at Salt Lake Sales Tax Building went to the Sales Tax Building at Beliaghata to appear before respondent No. 3, but could not attend the off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
