GARDEN REACH SHIP BUILDERS AND ENGINEERS LTD Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, CORPORATE DIVISION, KOLKATA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.)

(2.) BY this application under section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987, the petitioner, M/s. Garden Reach Ship Builder and Engineers Ltd., of 43/46, Garden Reach Road, Kolkata 700 024, has challenged the legality and validity of the order refusing to settle the dispute of tax, penalty and interest in respect fourth quarter ending on March 31, 1982 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and subsequent issue of form 4 for sending information under section 13 of the West Bengal Sales Tax (Settlement of Dispute) Act, 1999 to the revisional authority for disposal of the pending revision case. Mr. A. K. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner filed an application in form 1 for settlement of disputed tax, penalty and interest amounting to Rs. 8,98,452.51, Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 4,89,375, respectively, under the West Bengal Sales Tax (Settlement of Dispute) Act, 1999 along with a forwarding letter on December 27, 2001. In the said letter the petitioner contended that it was entitled to get back refund of Rs. 5,52,928 in terms of the principle laid down by this Tribunal in the case of V. J. Suraiya v. Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes reported in, (2002) 127 STC 575 (WBTT);, (2002) 38 STA 110 (WBTT). The learned advocate has alleged that since then the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, respondent No. 2, did not take any action on the matter for long 6 (six) years. Thereafter, on July 10, 2006, the petitioner received notice in form 2 with a direction to deposit Rs. 3,41,412 as calculated by respondent No. 2, for settlement of dues. The petitioner in response to the notice in form 2 sent reply that it has already deposited Rs. 8,73,885 and therefore, after adjustment of the claimed dues, the petitioner shall get refund of Rs. 5,52,928. Mr. Mukherjee has further alleged that instead of settle the dispute of tax, penalty and interest and to refund the excess amount after adjustment, respondent No. 2, issued a form 4 on November 2006 to the Registrar, West Bengal Commercial Tax Appellate and Revisional Board with a copy to the petitioner intimating that the prayer for settlement was refused and the revisional authority may dispose the revision on the merits. Hence, the learned advocate has prayed for a direction to respondent No. 2 to settle the dispute of tax, penalty and interest as per law and to refund the excess amount to the petitioner along with interest.