Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Emerald Jewel Industry India ... vs Senior Joint Commissioner on 13 December, 2022
WPTT NO. 01 OF 2022
REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
RESERVED ON: 25.11.2022
DELIVERED ON:13.12.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK
W.P.T.T. NO. 01 OF 2022
EMERALD JEWEL INDUSTRY INDIA LIMITED
VERSUS
SENIOR JOINT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, WEST BENGAL,
LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT & OTHERS
Appearance:-
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Agarwal, Adv.
........For the Petitioner
Mr. T.M. Siddique, Adv.
Mr. Debasish Ghosh, Adv.
........For the State
Page 1 of 18
WPTT NO. 01 OF 2022
REPORTABLE
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.)
1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the
tribunal. The facts which are necessary for the consideration of the relief
sought for in the writ petition could be stated as follows:-
2. The petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the business of
manufacturing of jewellery and ornaments and selling the same within the
country as well as exports. The Bank of Nova Scotia had filed the revision
case before the tribunal in RN No. 92 of 2018.The said bank, impleaded as a
proforma respondent in this writ petition, is a registered dealer under the
provisions of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003, (WBVAT) carrying
on business of banking and also a reseller of bullion, gold and silver. In their
return for the period 2014-2015, they claimed exemption from tax under
Rule 33A of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (the Rules) in
respect of the sales made to the writ petitioner amounting to Rs.
18,60,65,057/-. The assessing authority of the said bank disallowed the
claim for exemption on the sole ground that the purchasing dealer namely
the writ petitioner did not manufacture the jewellery in the State of West
Bengal but had manufactured the same at Coimbatore in Tamil Nadu state.
The bank preferred appeal before the First Appellate Authority which was
dismissed by the order dated 16.11.2017. Aggrieved by such order, the bank
filed a revision petition before the tribunal. The said revision petition was
dismissed by order dated 06.09.2021 which has now been challenged by the
writ petitioner on the ground that they are the purchasing dealer and are
aggrieved by such order.
WPTT NO. 01 OF 2022
REPORTABLE
3. We have heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Agarwal, learned advocate appearing
for the petitioner and Mr. T.M. Siddique and Mr. Debasish Ghosh learned
advocates for the respondent state.
4. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that they had
purchased gold from the bank of Nova Scotia by furnishing declarations
under Section 33A (1) (a) of the VAT Act to enable the bank to claim
exemption from payment of value added tax. It is submitted that in terms of
the relevant rule, the bank is entitled to sell gold to a registered dealer in
West Bengal for use in the manufacture of jewellery to be exported outside
India. In terms of Rule 33A (3), a certificate in the form appended to the rule
has to be issued by the purchasing dealer, the petitioner. It is submitted
that the form contained stipulations that the goods purchased are for the
purpose of use in the manufacture of jewellery in West Bengal to be
exported out of India and not intended to be disposed of otherwise. The
learned advocate would submit that in Rule 33A there is no condition that
the gold so purchased should be used for manufacture of jewellery in West
Bengal and therefore the form of certificate is contrary to the rule. The
petitioner had undertaken the manufacture of jewellery in Coimbatore and
thereafter exported the same which has not been disputed by the
department and therefore the petitioner has not disposed of the
manufactured jewellery in any other manner. The learned counsel placed
reliance on the decision of the tribunal in the case of Nayara Energy
Limited Versus Senior Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, LTU
in Case No. R.N. 1399 2018 dated 13.11.2020 wherein it was held that
the form appended to the rules has to be in conformity with the provisions of
WPTT NO. 01 OF 2022
REPORTABLE
the Act and the rules framed thereunder. It is submitted that initially the
challenge made by the respondent bank was heard by the two member
bench of the Tribunal which had agreed with the submissions made by the
state and taking note of the facts that the decision of the tribunal in Nayara
Energy Limited was a three member bench, the case of the respondent
bank was referred to a three member bench and that is as to how the matter
was dealt with and the impugned order came to be passed. It is submitted
that the sole reason on which the case of the respondent bank was not
accepted by the tribunal is by holding that both the rule and the form were
laid down by the same rule making authority in the same sitting and
therefore the form cannot be given any lesser significance and authority
than Rule 33A. Further it is submitted that it was argued before the tribunal
that any restrictions if it is to be placed depending upon the situs of
manufacture, it will be a clear violation of Article 301 and 304 of the
Constitution of India. The learned Advocate for the appellant had elaborately
referred to the decision of the tribunal in the case of Nayara Energy and
the decision was sought to be pressed into service to be in the nature of the
arguments made by the learned advocate in the case before us. It is the
submission of Mr. Agarwal that the form appended to the rules has to be in
conformity with the provisions of the Act and rules framed thereunder and a
form is lower in hierarchy to the rules and in the absence of any such
restrictions that the goods have to be manufactured in West Bengal in the
substantive rule, such a condition cannot be imposed by including a clause
in the form. In other words, it is submitted that the form of declaration
cannot prescribe restrictions or conditions beyond the rules. It is further
WPTT NO. 01 OF 2022
REPORTABLE
submitted that the respondent state have accepted the decision in Nayara
Energy, it has become a binding precedent. It is further submitted that in
Rule 26A of the WBVAT Rules deduction has been provided from taxable
turn over when the purchasing dealer uses the goods (cotton yards) in the
manufacture of goods in the State of West Bengal. Rule 26A and the form of
certificate prescribes such as the condition which shows that the legislature
was conscious of the requirements of manufacturing activity has to be done
in the state whereas such a requirement has not been prescribed in Rule
33A and there cannot be any room for intendment. In support of his
contention, learned advocate placed reliance on the decisions in:-
Patina Gold Ornaments Private Limited Versus Assistant
Commissioner (ct.) Park Road Circle, Erode and Another 1,
West Bengal Hosiery Associations and Others Versus State of
Bihar and Another 2.
Loarn Steel Industries Limited and Another Etc. Versus State of
Andhra Pradesh and Another 3
State of U.P. Versus Jaiprakash Associates and Others 4,
Commissioner of Income-Tax, Chennai Versus Tulsyan NEC
Limited 5
Jai Matadi Enterprises Versus S.T.O. Asansol Charge & Others 6
IDL Chemicals Limited Versus Union of India 7,
(2018) 50 GSTR 114 (Mad)
(1988) 4 SCC 134
(1997) 2 SCC 37
(2013) 39 Taxman.com 44 (SC)
(2011) 196 Taxman 181 (SC)
(2018) Volume 71 Sales Tax Advisors Page 22 (Tribunal)
1996 (86) ELT 182 (SC)
WPTT NO. 01 OF 2022
REPORTABLE
Corporation Bank Versus M/s. Saraswati Abharansala and
Another in Civil Appeal No. 6708 of 2008 dated 19.11.2008 (SC)
and
Government of Kerala and Another Versus Mother Superior
Adoration Convent 8.
5. Mr. T.M. Siddique, learned counsel appearing for the respondent state
submitted that in the form of certificate appended to the rules, it is
prescribed that the purchasing dealer must certify that the goods purchased
from the selling dealer are for the purpose of use in the manufacture of
jewellery in West Bengal to be exported by him out of the country and are
not intended to be disposed of otherwise. It is submitted that the said
certificate appended to Rule 33A is integral part of the rule and cannot be
read and interpreted separately. Further the said form has been laid down
by the very same authority which had made the rule and therefore the
question of the said form overriding the rule does not arise. Further it is
submitted that the intention of the legislature is clear by insertion of the
words in sub rule (1) namely "subject to conditions specified in sub rule 3"
and sub rule (3) specifically lays down two pre conditions for claiming
deduction under Section 16(1) (c) of the Act namely, (a) that the selling
dealer shall furnish the relevant invoices / cash memo evidencing such
sales and (b) a certificate in a form appended to the rule duly filled in and
signed by the purchasing dealer. It is submitted that the said form clearly
stipulates that the purchasing dealer must certify that the goods purchased
from the selling dealer are for the purpose of use in the manufacture of
(2021) 5 SCC 602
WPTT NO. 01 OF 2022
REPORTABLE
jewellery in West Bengal. It is submitted that if the Rule 33A is read in its
entirety, it is evident that there is a continuity of expression which ends with
the form of certificate. Therefore, it is submitted that the words in the rule
should be understood by harmonizing the same with the provisions of the
Act and the object of the legislation. In support of such contention, reliance
was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Durgabai
Deshmukh Memorial Senior Secondary School and Another Versus
J.A.J Vasu Sena and Another 9 and for the same proposition, reliance was
placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar
Pradesh Versus C. Tobit and Others 10. It is further submitted that the
intention was to promote the manufacture of jewellery in the State of West
Bengal and therefore Rule 33A has prescribed that both purchasing and
selling dealers must be registered under the WBVAT in West Bengal. This
makes the intention of the legislature clear to mean that the registered
dealer in West Bengal will ultimately use the gold in manufacturing jewellery
in West Bengal. Thus, it is submitted that the statute has to be interpreted
in such a manner bearing in mind the context and purpose of the statute.
To support such arguments, reliance was placed on the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harbhajan Singh Versus Press Council of
India and Others 11. To support his contention that the form of certificate
is the part of the rule reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation
(2019) 17 SCC 157
AIR 1958 SCC 414
(2002) 3 SCC 722
WPTT NO. 01 OF 2022
REPORTABLE
Versus Babu Goverdhan Regular Motor Services and Others 12 . It is
further submitted that Rule 33A relates to deduction on turnover of sales
and it is not akin to denial of the rebate of tax or input tax credit (ITC) on
the basis of geographical restrictions. To buttress the said submission,
reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jindal
Stainless Steel Limited Versus State of Haryana13. Further by relying
upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of
Customs (Import) Versus Dilip Kumar and Company and Others 14, it is
submitted that the concession granted by the Rule 33A has to be strictly
interpreted and such interpretation should lean in favour of the revenue.
6. Mr. Agarwal reiterated that neither in Sub rule (1) nor in sub rule (3) of
Rule 33A there is any condition prescribed that the manufacture of jewellery
has to be undertaken in the State of West Bengal and it appears only in the
form of certificate which cannot override the rule. With regard to the
decision in the case of Babu Goverdhan Regular Motor Service, it is
submitted that the issue in the said case was with regard to the entitlement
of stage carriage permit by submitting the required information in a
prescribed application form and the legal issue raised in this writ petition
was not subject matter in the said case. It is further submitted that the
decision in Jindal Stainles Limited has absolutely no application to the
facts of the case on hand. Further the decision in Jindal Stainless Limited
was considered in Patina Gold Ornaments and the decision has been
rendered in favour of the dealer. It is further submitted that the decision in
1969 (2) SCC 746
(2017) 12 SCC 1
(2018) 9 SCC 1
WPTT NO. 01 OF 2022
REPORTABLE
Dilip Kumar will not apply to the facts of the case on hand as it pertains to
entitlement of general exemption and not deduction from turnover of sales.
Further there is no ambiguity in Rule 33A and the only issue is with regard
to the inconsistency of the form of certificate. The decision in Dilip Kumar
had been explained in the decision in Mother Superior Adoration
Convent. Further the argument of the state that the rule seeks to promote
manufacture of jewellery within the state was a similar argument which was
dealt with in Patina Gold Ornaments. Further it is submitted that if the
stand taken by the respondent is accepted then the assessee who is a
registered dealer in West Bengal would not be able to undertake the
manufacture on job work basis outside the state which is not envisaged in
the rules. That apart, denial of deduction under Rule 33A on the basis of
situs of manufacture would be ultravires under Article 301 and 304 of the
Constitution. It is submitted that in Corporation Bank an identical issue,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court had issued directions to the state to refund the
value added tax directly to the buyer of the gold instead of claiming refund
through the seller of the gold.
7. We have elaborately heard the learned advocates for the parties and
carefully perused the materials placed on record.
8. The issue which falls for consideration in this case is whether the form
of certificate occurring in Rule 33A is inconsistent with Rule 33A. In order to
find the answer to this query, we first need to take note of the Rule 33A in
its entirety.
33A. Exemption from tax on certain sales of gold, silver,
platinum and diamond or precious stones- (1) Where-
WPTT NO. 01 OF 2022
REPORTABLE
(a) any scheduled commercial bank, authorised by the Reserve
Bank of India to import gold or silver or platinum from
outside India; or
(b) the Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Limited
(a Government of India enterprise) (hereinafter referred to as
MMTC),
sells gold, silver or platinum to a registered dealer in West
Bengal for use of such goods by such registered dealer in
manufacture of jewellery to be exported by him or by MMTC
out of the territory of India, such scheduled commercial bank
or MMTC may, subject to the conditions specified in sub-rule
(3), deduct turnover of such sales of such goods under clause
(c) of sub-section (1) of Section 16.
(2) Where any registered dealer sells diamond or precious
stones to a registered dealer in West Bengal for use of such
goods by such purchasing registered dealer in manufacture
of jewellery to be exported by him out of the territory of
India, such selling registered dealer may, subject to the
conditions specified in sub-rule (3), deduct turnover of such
sales of such goods under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of
Section 16.
(3) For claiming the deduction under clause (c) of sub-section
(1) of section 16 as referred to in sub-rule (1) or sub rule (2),
as the case may be, the selling registered dealer shall
furnish relevant invoice/cash memo evidencing such sales
and a certificate in the form appended to this rule, duly filled
in and signed by the purchasing registered dealer or by a
person authorised by such purchasing registered dealer for
the purpose.
FORM OF CERTIFICATE
[See sub-rule (3) of rule 33A]
Serial No........ Date..........
To
......................(bank/MMTC/dealer)
.....................(Address)
.....................(Certificate of Registration No., if any)
WPTT NO. 01 OF 2022
REPORTABLE
Certified that the goods purchased from you as specified in the
invoice/cash memo stated below are for the purpose of use in the
manufacture of jewellery in West Bengal to be exported by *me/us out of
the territory of India and are not intended to be disposed of otherwise by -
me/us.
Invoice/Cash Description of goods Quantity Amount
Memo No. and date
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Name and address of the purchasing dealer:
Certificate of Registration No:
Date...................
Signature and status of the person
signing the certificate
*Strike out which is not applicable.
9. Rule 33A deals with exemption from tax on a certain sales of gold,
silver, platinum and diamond or precious stones. Sub rule (1) states that
where any scheduled commercial bank, authorised by Reserve Bank of India
to import gold or silver or platinum from outside India or the minerals and
metal trading corporation of India sells gold, silver or platinum to a
registered dealer in West Bengal for the use of such goods, by such
registered dealer in manufacture of jewellery to be exported by him or by
MMTC out of the territory of India, such scheduled commercial banks or
MMTC may, subject to the condition specified in Sub rule (3), deduct the
turnover of sales of such goods under Clause (c) of sub section (1) of Section
16 of the Act. Sub section (2) is not relevant for the purpose of our case. Sub
rule (3) provides for the manner of claiming deduction under clause (c) of
WPTT NO. 01 OF 2022
REPORTABLE
sub section (1) of Section 16 as referred to in sub rule (1) of Rule 33A. Thus
a registered dealer in the State of West Bengal who sells gold, silver or
platinum to another registered dealer in the State of West Bengal for use of
such goods in the manufacture of jewellery to be exported by him subject to
the conditions prescribed in sub rule (3) will be entitled to deduct such
turnover of such sales under Clause (c) of sub section (1) of Section 16.
What is required to be done by the registered dealer is spelt out in Sub rule
(3) of Rule 33A stating that the selling registered dealer shall furnish
relevant invoice or cash memo evidencing such sales and the certificate in
the form appended to the rule duly filled in and signed by purchasing
dealer. The form of certificate as required by purchasing dealer to certify
that the goods purchased are for the purpose of use in the manufacture of
jewellery in West Bengal to be exported by him out of the territory of India
and not intended to disposed of otherwise. The invoice No., date, description
of goods, quantity and the amount have to be furnished apart from the
name and address of the purchasing dealer and certificate of registration
number. The contention of the petitioner is that in Rule 33 (1) and (3) there
is no such restrictions that the gold, silver or platinum purchased has to be
used in the manufacture of jewellery in the State of West Bengal and to be
exported and such a condition is contained only in the form and the form
cannot override the rule. Thus, the sum and substance of the argument of
Mr. Agarwal is that in the hierarchy the form is in the lowest rung and the
rule occupies a higher pedestal in the hierarchy than the form and the Act
in highest pedestal in the hierarchy and a condition which is neither
contained in the Act nor in the rules could not be incorporated in the form
WPTT NO. 01 OF 2022
REPORTABLE
of certificate. At the first blush, the argument of Mr. Agarwal appears to be
attractive but we are required to examine the rule in its entirety by bearing
in mind the cardinal principle of statutory interpretation that is to say that
the rule has to be read as a whole and in the context and the object of the
legislation.
10. The first and foremost aspect which is conspicuously present in Rule
33A is that both the purchasing dealer and the selling dealer should be
registered dealers under the provisions of the WBVAT. Unless this pre
condition is satisfied the claim for exemption from tax on sales of gold, silver
and platinum and diamond or precious stones is impermissible. It is not in
dispute that the petitioner and the respondent bank are registered dealers in
West Bengal.
11. The second condition is that the gold, silver or platinum which is
sold/purchased has to be used by such registered dealer (registered
purchasing dealer in West Bengal) in manufacture of jewellery to be
exported by him. If both the registered dealers fulfils this criteria the
exemption is to the effect that the selling dealers can deduct the turnover of
such sales of goods under clause (c) of Sub section (1) of Section 60. This
exemption is subject to the conditions specified in sub rule (3) of Rule 33A.
Sub rule (3) requires two conditions to be fulfilled for claiming deduction
under Section 16(1) (c) namely the selling dealer should furnish the invoice
evidencing such sales and the purchasing dealer should furnish the
certificate in a form appended to the rule. Unlike other rules where statutory
forms are given in the schedule to the rule in Rule 33A the form of certificate
WPTT NO. 01 OF 2022
REPORTABLE
forms part of the Rule 33A. Thus, the twin conditions required to be fulfilled
under sub rule (3) of Rule 33A is not by the selling dealer alone as both
selling dealer as well as the purchasing dealers are bound over by their
respective condition. This is precisely the reason for which the rule 33A (1)
mandates that both the selling and purchasing dealers have to be registered
in the State of West Bengal. Therefore, we find that the form of certificate is
embodied in the rule and unless the form is read along with the sub rule (3)
it becomes meaningless and such interpretation is impermissible. That
apart, the petitioner cannot contend that it is sufficient if the selling dealer
furnishes the relevant invoices evidencing such sales and they would be free
to carry on job work with the gold so purchased by doing the job work
outside the State of West Bengal. The intention of legislature is clear from
reading the rule as a whole as it mandates both the dealers should be
registered in State of West Bengal and the gold so purchased should be used
in the manufacture of jewellery to be exported. Thus, the rule read in its
entirety clearly shows that unless both the conditions are satisfied namely
condition to be complied by the selling dealers and the condition which has
to be complied with by the purchasing dealer such exemption is not
available. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Constitution Bench of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CCE Versus Hari Chand Shri Gopal 15 a
manufacturer qualified to seek exemption was required to comply with the
pre-conditions for claiming exemption and therefore is not exempt or
absolved from following the statutory requirements as contained in the
Rules. Further it was held that a person who claims exemption or
(2011) 1 SCC 236
WPTT NO. 01 OF 2022
REPORTABLE
concession has to establish that he is entitled to that exemption or
concession and such provision has to be construed strictly with certain
exceptions depending upon settings of which the provision has been placed
in the statute and the object and purpose to be achieved. Further the
mandatory requirements of those conditions must be obeyed or fulfilled
exactly though at times some latitude can be shown.
12. In Dilip Kumar, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified the position of
"plain meaning rule or clear an unambiguous rule" with respect to tax law
by holding that the when the language in the statute is plain and
unambiguous, the court has to read and understand the plain language as
such and there is no scope of any interpretation. Further it was held that in
interpreting a taxing statute equitable considerations are entirely out of
place, a taxing statute cannot be interpreted on assumptions and
presumptions and it has to be interpreted in the light of what is clearly
expressed, it cannot imply anything which is not expressed, it cannot import
provisions in the statute so as to supply any deficiencies and that any
vagueness in the exemption clauses must go to the benefit of revenue.
13. As mentioned above, if we read the scheme of the WBVAT and the
rules, it is clear that the Rule 33A was intended to give a special benefit to
dealers registered in the State of West Bengal that is both the selling and
purchasing dealer who deal with gold and who sells gold purchased by
another registered dealer in the state who manufactures jewellery for export.
Therefore, the arguments that by preventing the petitioner from carrying out
job work outside the State of West Bengal would violate Article 301 and 304
WPTT NO. 01 OF 2022
REPORTABLE
of the Constitution is an argument which is stated to be outrightly rejected.
It was argued by Mr. Agarwal that a comparison of Rule 33A with Rule 26A
will clearly reveal the intention of legislation. We are not impressed with the
said submission as we are to test as to whether there is any inconsistency in
the form appended to the Rule 33A to that of the rule itself. The intention,
the object and the purpose of such exemption cannot be interpreted by
referring to Rule 26A which operates in entirely different field. Further we
reiterate that sub rule (3) of Rule 33A imposes a mandate on the selling
dealer to produce a form of certificate to be signed by the purchasing dealer
who has also to be registered in the State of West Bengal, affirming that the
gold purchased by him from the selling dealer "registered in West Bengal"
has been used in manufacture of jewellery in the State of West Bengal and
exported out of India. Full particulars of the purchases effected have to be
furnished. Therefore, we find there is absolutely no inconsistency nor the
form is contrary to the Rule 33A rather the form is part of the rule itself. The
decision in Patina Gold Ornaments is clearly distinguishable on facts as in
the said case the relief sought was to forbear the official respondent from
relying on the provisions of the Sections 19(2) (ii) and Section 19 (4) of the
Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 or recover input tax credit under
Section 27 (2) of the said Act in respect of purchase of inputs entrusted to a
job work outside the state for manufacture of condition of return into the
State of Tamil Nadu and found sold in the State of Tamil Nadu. In effect the
challenge was to Section 19(2) and 19(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax
Act. Therefore, the decision does not render any assistance to the case of the
petitioner. The other decisions relied on by Mr. Agarwal stating that the
WPTT NO. 01 OF 2022
REPORTABLE
denial of exemption to the selling dealer merely on the ground that the
purchasing dealer had done job work could violate Article 301 and 304 of
the Constitution has already been negatived by us for reasons set out in the
preceding paragraphs and therefore the decisions relied on the said point
are not discussed. The decision in Babu Goverdhan Regular Motor
Service relied on by Mr. Siddique is closer to the facts of this case and we
do not accept the submissions of Mr. Agarwal that the decision would not
have any application to the case on hand. The ratio of the decision is that
the Section 46 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the relevant rule and the
form prescribed have been held to be read together and so read, it follows
that an applicant for stage carry permit must comply at any rate,
substantially with the various matters mentioned therein. It was held that
by prescribing the form the State Government has not acted beyond the rule
making power as the form is an integral part of the Rule 80 of the said rules
which the State Government therein was authorised to make under Section
68 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. As held by us, the form is not only
integral part of the rule but embodied in the rule itself as it is mandatory
condition imposed on the selling dealer in obtaining a certificate from the
purchasing dealer. This condition could be imposed only because Rule 33A
(1) insists that the selling dealer and the purchasing dealer are both
registered under WBVAT. The decision in the case of Corporation Bank
relied on by Mr. Agarwal is of no assistance to the case of the petitioner as it
pertains to the case of refund which stage has not occurred in the case on
hand as the case is at the threshold stage. Interestingly, the fourth
respondent which had filed revision case before the tribunal chose not to
WPTT NO. 01 OF 2022
REPORTABLE
challenge the order of tribunal and it is not the clear as to whose case, the
writ petitioner is canvassing. Therefore, the locus standi of the petitioner is
also largely questionable especially when the order passed by the tribunal
arose out of the order passed by the assessing officer of the fourth
respondent bank and the petition filed before the tribunal was not
challenging the validity of the rule for the petitioner herein to contend that it
would remotely affect its rights. However, this issue appears to have not
been specifically raised by the respondent before us.
14. Thus, for all the above reasons, we find that the order passed by the
learned tribunal rejecting the revision petition filed by the fourth respondent
to be just and proper and does not call for any interference.
15. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)
I agree.
(BIVAS PATTANAYAK, J.)
(P.A- SACHIN)
