Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Susmita Islam vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 28 September, 2022
Item No.17.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
HEARD ON: 28.09.2022
DELIVERED ON:28.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA
M.A.T. No.1504 of 2022
With
I.A. No.CAN 1 of 2022
Susmita Islam, Proprietor of Glass Centre.
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Appearance:-
Ms. Sweta Mukherjee ..... for the appellant.
Mr. T. M. Siddique,
Mr. Debasish Ghosh,
Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee .... for the State.
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)
1. This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated
1st September, 2022 in W.P.A. No.19595 of 2022, which was heard
along with other connected matters.
2. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order on account
of the fact that no interim order was granted by the learned
Single Bench but affidavit-in-opposition was directed to be
filed. The challenge in the writ petition was to an order
passed by the Senior Joint Commissioner of State Tax, 24
Parganas Circle dated 27th October, 2021 by which the appeal
petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
3. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted
that the appellant's husband had appeared before the concerned
appellate authority on 27th October, 2021 and submitted that the
appellant had undergone a surgery and requested for an
adjournment and it was informed that a fresh date will be given.
However, the order dated 27th October, 2021 was passed and it was
sent by email only on 12th November, 2021 and the appellant was
shocked to find that the appeal was dismissed by passing an ex
parte order.
4. The learned Government standing counsel would strenuously
contend that thrice the matter was adjourned but the appellant
had not taken any effective step to prosecute the matter and
therefore, the appellate authority was right in rejecting the
appeal by taking an ex parte decision.
5. After hearing the learned Advocates appearing for the
parties and perusing the materials placed on record, while the
appellate authority would be justified in proceeding ex parte,
yet in revenue matters especially when the assessee is an
individual, certain amount of leverage can be granted. In any
event, the first date of hearing of the appeal was fixed on 15 th
September, 2020 and the next date was fixed after more than a
year, i.e. on 27th October, 2021. Therefore, no prejudice has
been caused to the department if one more adjournment had been
granted.
6. Furthermore, the appellate remedy being a very efficacious
and effective remedy and the appellate authority being entitled
to re-appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case, it
would be better in the interest of revenue to pass a speaking
order after hearing the appellant. However, we make it clear
that if the appellant gets an opportunity, she should cooperate
in the conduct of the appeal proceedings and should not seek for
any adjournment.
7. For the above reasons, the writ petition as well as this
appeal and connected application stand disposed of and the order
passed by the appellate authority dated 27 th October, 2021 is set
aside and the appeal stands restored to the file of the
appellate authority, who shall fix a date of hearing of the
appeal in November, 2022 and the appellant shall appear on the
said date without seeking further adjournment and after hearing
the appellant, the appeal shall be disposed of on merit and in
accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
8. There shall be no order as to costs.
9. 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,
(SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA, J.)
NAREN/PALLAB(AR.C)
