- (1.) This application is at the instance of Howrah Tax Payers Association and six (6) others and is directed against the judgment dated 30.3.2009 passed by the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) in R.N. 266 of 2008.
(2.) In this application the Writ Petitioners have questioned the constitutional validity of the provisions for imposition of 'late fee' for filing of returns as contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003. (hereinafter referred to VAT in short)
(3.) The facts leading to this application are stated below, in short - The State Legislature by the West Bengal Finance Act, 2007 amended the provisions of Section 32(2) of the VAT with effect from April 1, 2007 affording opportunity to the dealers who failed to submit return within the prescribed time to furnish return upon payment of 'penalty' as prescribed. Further amendment was made by the West Bengal Finance Act, 2008 (Act 1 of 2008) to Section 32(2) providing payment of 'late fee' in place of 'penalty' with retrospective effect from April 1, 2007, i.e., the date when the first amendment of 2007 came into operation. The writ Petitioners filed three (3) applications before the learned Tribunal challenging the consitutional validity of earlier amendment of Section 32(2) of the VAT Act. While the matter was pending, the second amendment was introduced as aforesaid. The learned Tribunal disposed of those three (3) petitions in R.N. 406 of 2006 on 4.4.2008 observing that the questions raised before it by the Petitioners became academic and were not required to be decided. The Petitioners thereafter filed three (3) new applications as stated above on which the impugned judgment was passed. The learned Tribunal did not find any merit in the contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioners and accordingly, dismissed those applications. The writ Petitioners herein challenged the impugned judgment passed by the learned Tribunal on 30.3.2009 in R.N. 267 of 2008 on the grounds amongst other that the learned Tribunal was not at all justified in dismissing the petitions filed by the Petitioners.;