S.K.Mookherjee, J. - (1.) - Appeal No. F.H.A.T. No. 3716 of 1986 is directed against an order passed by a. learned Single Judge on 17.9.86 in C.O. No, 9997(W) of 1986, dismissing a writ petition preferred by the appellants inter alia, on the ground that the writ petitioners have an alternative forum in the form of revision provided for under Bengal Finance Salem Tax Act. The instant application in connection with the said appeal for stay of operation of the judgment under appeal as also for some ad interim reliefs. The writ petitioners are the appellants/petitioners before us.
(2.) The present appeal is one of the rare instances, as will be indicated by the facts and circumstances hereinafter, where a routine order even at the interlocutory stage, may not sub-serve the end of justice. The probable impact of even an interlocutory order on the survival of a business concern like that of the petitioners, on the one hand, and irreparable loss of revenue on the part of the statutory authorities on the other, has compelled us to bestow our very serious and anxious consideration at the dictates of our judicial conscience so that within the permissible limits of law, the interests of both the contesting parties may be duly safeguarded and ends of justice may be served.
(3.) The relevant facts as narrated in the writ application, shortly put; are as follows: - The petitioner No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as concerned petitioner) carried on a business under the name and style of M/s. Love-Bird (India) at 9, Beck Bagan Row; Calcutta-17 as Commission Agent and Tea Merchant the concerned petitioner's firm was member of Calcutta Tea Traders Association and such entitled to bid at auction of Tea Sale held in Nilhut House at No. 11, R. N. Mukherjee Road, Calcutta-1; other tea traders, who are not members of the said Association, purchased tea sold in auction as aforesaid in the name of the concerned petitioner against commissions; under the existing system the members, who bid at the auction, are permitted to make payments by the last day, which is the 15th day from the date of the auction and which is known as the prompt day, failing which the membership is liable to be cancelled; on one such prompt day on 5.2.1986 the concerned petitioner was tallying the documents at the office of petitioner No. 1 at P. 36, India Exchange Place, when a search had been conducted purportedly on behalf of the Sales Tax Authorities and in course of such search a number of documents including one file in custody of petitioner No. 1 had been seized against a seizure receipt indicating seizure of two items containing five pieces of documents on suspicion that M/s. Love-Bird (India) of 9, Beck Bagan Row had been attempting to evade payment of tax, the seized documents included four declaration forms; since the seizure was conducted by officers of Central Section, of Commercial Taxes, the concerned petitioner contacted the Commercial Tax Officer, Central Section, for return of the seized documents, the concerned petitioner also contacted the Commercial Tax Officer, Ballygunge Charge, to whom an application for declaration forms had been submitted, series of attempts to get back those documents proved abortive though the concerned petitioner apprised the authorities that without the necessary declaration forms it would not be possible for him to get the purchased tea released, by a notice dated 14.2.86, under Section 14(1) of the Bengal Finance Sales Tax, 1941, the Commercial Tax Officer, Central Section, asked the concerned petitioner to appear before him on 24.2.86 at 11-30 A.M., no hearing took place on 24.2.86'due to non-availability of the concerned officer, By a subsequent notice, dated 22.4.86, the concerned petitioner was directed to appear again on 12th May, 1986 at 11-30 A.M., as the petitioner was facing difficulty in the absence of declaration forms, the petitioner contacted the Commercial Tax Officer, Ballygunge Charge on 8.3.86 for issuance of the declaration forms on the basis of the application made on 6.2.86 when it was intimated to the concerned petitioner that the registration certificate of the petitioners' firm had been cancelled by the said officer on 24.2.86; that no notice prior to such cancellation had been served on the concerned petitioner and in view of such cancellation, no declaration form was issued to him it appears from the order canceling the registration that such cancellation had been made on the belief that the dealer had not been carrying on business from the declared place of business as gathered from personal visit by the officer concerned on 24.2.86 and another visit by an Inspector of Commercial Taxes on 20.2.86, there was also a reference to visit by team of Inspectors of the Central Section without any particulars relating to such visit, the concerned petitioner filed two Revisional application on 21.8.86 under both the State Act and the Central Act challenging the propriety of the order of cancellation; the said two applications were taken up for hearing on 4.4.86 by one P. G. Goswami Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, South Circle, respondent No. 4 who called for a report from the Commercial Tax Officer, Ballygunge Charge, apparently to discern the real reason for cancellation of the registration certificates an4 simultaneously asked the Concerned petitioner to submit a statement of purchases and sales made during the month of March, 1986, that is, subsequent to the cancellation of the registration certificates; the concerned petitioner handed over the required statement, which was the only statement called for from the side of the statutory authorities in connection with the Revisional applications; it appears from a memo, forwarded to the petitioner by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, South Circle, under his letter dated 3.7.86, that the Commercial Tax Officer, Ballygunge Charge, who had cancelled the registration had intimated him on 20.6.86 that the purchases and sales, obviously, during the month of March 1986 after cancellation of the registration, could not be verified by the Central Section due to submission of incomplete statement by the dealer; as the conduct of the respondents appeared to the concerned petitioner to be designed and motivated and as he apprehended that the whole object of the respondents was to defer the hearing of the Revisional applications, the petitioners moved the writ application in question, inter alia, for quashing of the orders of cancellation, .refusal of declaration forms and for return of the seized documents with a declaration that the seizure made on 5.2.86 was void, invalid, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction.;