Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Graphic Aids vs Sales Tax Officer on 22 November, 2022
Item No.8.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
HEARD ON: 22.11.2022
DELIVERED ON:22.11.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA
M.A.T No.1523 of 2022
with
I.A. No.CAN 1 of 2022
Graphic aids.
Vs.
Sales Tax Officer, Princep Street Charge & ors.
Appearance:-
Mr. Souradipta Saha,
Ms. Singdha Saha ..... for the appellant.
Mr. Md. T. M. Siddique,
Mr. Debasish Ghosh,
Mr. V. Kothari ...... for the State
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)
1. The appellant is directed to remit the deficit court fees
of Rs.600/- during the course of this day.
2. This intra Court appeal by the writ petitioner is directed
against the order dated 16th August, 2022 passed in W.P.A.
No.17775 of 2022. In the said writ petition, the appellant had
challenged the garnishee order dated 23rd March, 2022 for
recovery of the tax and penalty payable pursuant to the
assessment order dated 29th June, 2012. The learned Single Bench
has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellant
/ writ petitioner is not aware of the fate of the revisional
application, which it had filed against the order passed by the
appellate authority dated 7th February, 2014.
3. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted
that even much prior to the assessment order, since there was a
change of place of business, the appellant had filed the
requisite details before the Sales Tax Officer concerned
requesting for amendment of the place of business in the
certificate of registration, which was not done. That apart,
after the department adopted online system, requisite online
application was filed for change of address, which is also kept
pending. The learned Advocate for the appellant would further
submit that no opportunity of hearing was granted to it by the
appellate authority, who dismissed the appeal by an order dated
7th February, 2014.
4. Aggrieved by such order, the revisional application has
been filed and till date, the appellant has not been informed
about the date of hearing of the revisional application, nor
further steps taken by the revisional authority and for the
first time, when the writ petition was heard, it was mentioned
on behalf of the respondents that the revision petition has been
disposed of. Further, order passed in the revisional application
was not served or communicated to the appellant. Further, it is
submitted that after the writ petition was dismissed, the
respondents have recovered a sum of Rs.16,51,924/- as against
the total outstanding of Rs.32,03,488/-.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, which
we find to be very peculiar, the following order would not only
protect the interest of the appellant but also that of the
respondents / revenue.
6. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the order
passed in the writ petition is set aside with a direction to the
appellant to file an application before the revisional authority
clearly setting out all facts and requesting the revisional
authority to recall the order disposing of the revisional
application and if such an application is filed, the revisional
authority shall take up the same and pass a speaking order on
merits and in accordance with law after affording an opportunity
of personal hearing to the authorised representative of the
appellant.
7. As stated by the learned Advocate for the appellant that
sum of Rs.16,51,924/- has been recovered after the writ petition
was dismissed, we feel the interest of revenue has been
sufficiently safeguarded as more than 50% of the total dues has
already been recovered. Therefore, the garnishee order for the
balance amount shall be kept in abeyance and abide by the orders
to be passed by the revisional authority in terms of the above
direction.
8. In the light of the above, the attachment of the bank
account of the appellant shall be lifted within a period of
three days from the date of receipt of the server copy of this
judgment in order to enable the appellant to operate its bank
account.
9. Connected application being I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2022 is also
disposed of accordingly.
10. There shall be no order as to costs.
11. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied
for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance
of all legal formalities.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J)
I agree,
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
NAREN/PALLAB(AR.C)
