NEW GHOSH BUILDERS AND ANOTHER Vs. SENIOR JOINT COMMISSIONER, SALES TAX AND OTHERS
SALES TAX TRIBUNAL
New Ghosh Builders And Another
Senior Joint Commissioner, Sales Tax And Others
Click here to view full judgement.
SABYASACHI ROY, J. -
(1.) IN this application filed under section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987, the applicants namely, M/s. New Ghosh Builders (applicant No. 1) and Sri Gautam Ghosh (applicant No. 2) have assailed the impugned orders, dated November 17, 2009 and May 2, 2011 passed by the Senior Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax, Durgapur Circle (respondent No. 1) and Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Durgapur Zone (respondent No. 2), respectively, in disposal of applications in form 16 for seeking permission to make payment of tax at compounded rate under section 16(3) of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (VAT Act). The applicant on getting registered under the VAT Act filed application in form 16 praying for making payment of tax at compounded rate of 0.25 percent for the year ending 2005 -06, on the ground that the sales for year was not likely to exceed Rs. 50 lacs and the said permission was duly granted by the appropriate authority. The applicants deposited due taxes accordingly for the said year at the compounded rate of 0.25 percent. But inadvertently the applications in form 16 for the subsequent years of 2006 -07, 2007 -08, 2008 -09 and 2009 -10 were not filed in time although quarterly returns in form 15 for all the quarters in the aforesaid years were duly filed showing deposit of tax at the compounded rate. As stated in the application, on realisation of the mistake applicant No. 2 filed separate applications in form 16 with separate condonation petitions for all the above four years on October 12, 2009. Respondent No. 1 in an order passed on November 17, 2009 however allowed permission only for the year 2009 -10 but rejected the prayers for condonation of delay for the periods 2006 -07, 2007 -08 and 2008 -09. The impugned order dated November 17, 2009 of respondent No. 1 was confirmed in the revisional order dated May 2, 2011 passed by respondent No. 2. The applicants have challenged the legality and validity of the impugned orders dated November 17, 2009 and May 2, 2011, passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, respectively.
(2.) Sri B. Bhattacharyya, learned advocate appeared on behalf of the applicants, had submitted that admittedly the applications in form 16 for the four years, namely, 2006 -07, 2007 -08, 2008 -09, 2009 -10 were filed late and as such the same were duly supported by yearwise four separate applications praying for condonation of delay on the grounds of prolonged and sustained illness of wife and daughter of applicant No. 2.
(3.) IT was contended on behalf of the applicants that inspite of production of the documentary evidences in support of continuous and sustained illness of the wife and daughter for which applicant No. 2 had to make frequent to and fro journey between Kolkata and Chennai on the advice of Chennai doctors, as one of the main reason for the default in making applications in form 16 in time, respondent No. 1, while favourably considering the prayer for the year 2009 -10, rejected the same for the earlier years of 2006 -07, 2007 -08 and 2008 -09 practically without recording any reason therefor being dictated by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Law Section (respondent No. 2).;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.