P.K.Ganguly, Judicial Member - (1.) THIS is an application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 praying for setting aside the order dated October 24, 1997 passed by respondent No. 1, West Bengal Commercial Tax Appellate and Revisional Board and the order dated May 30, 2000 passed by respondent No. 3, the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Special Cell - -upon declaration that those orders are illegal, bad and erroneous in law and fact.
(2.) THE applicant - -a private limited company having business of selling wine is a dealer registered under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The applicant -company filed returns for the period four quarters ending 31st March, 1983 disclosing gross sale of Rs. 35,14,190.97 paise. The admitted tax on it of Rs. 56,396.38 paise was paid by the petitioner. The respondent No. 2, Commercial Tax Officer, Park Street Charge, completed the assessment for that period on March 7, 1987 and determined taxable turnover at Rs. 13,88,248.68 paise and demanded tax and penalty of Rs. 1,11,559.89 paise and after adjustment of the payment already made, demand for payment of Rs. 55,163.51 paise was made by respondent No. 2. Against that order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner who by order dated April 27, 1993 confirmed the order of respondent No. 2. The petitioner went in revision before respondent No. 1, the West Bengal Commercial Tax Appellate and Revisional Board (hereinafter referred as "the Board") on July 7, 1993 and prayed for order of stay. The petitioner had no knowledge that the said revision has been disposed of. In the meantime the petitioner filed an application before respondent No. 3, Additional Commissioner - -the designated authority for relief under the Settlement of Disputes Act, 1999 praying for settlement of the dispute over the arrear of tax concerning the impugned assessment. On July 27, 2000, the petitioner got a letter dated July 20, 2000 of respondent No. 3 - -the designated authority wherefrom he came to know only that the settlement application has been rejected by the order dated May 30, 2000 of respondent No. 3 - -the designated authority. But no copy of the said order was sent along with the letter. The petitioner wrote a letter requesting respondent No, 3 to send a copy of the order dated May 30, 2000. Ultimately the copy of the order reached the hand of the petitioner on August 30, 2000 through letter dated August 24, 2000 of respondent No. 3. It is only from that letter for the first time the petitioner came to know about the dismissal of the revision by respondent No.1 - -the Board. The petitioner applied for a certified copy of the order dated October 24, 1997 of respondent No. 1 (the Board) dismissing the revision. Ultimately on September 25, 2000 the petitioner was able to get the certified copy though in the meantime his prayer for inspection of the records through its advocate had been turned down. It is only on September 25, 2000 getting the certified copy, the petitioner came to know for the first time that the revision case has been dismissed for default on that date and that notice was issued by respondent No. 1 on September 22, 1997 by registered post intimating the date of hearing of the revision but unfortunately no such notice ever reached the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 also has such doubt about the service of notice and such doubt led him to hung up a copy of the notice in the notice board of respondent No. 1's office. There has been violation of the provision of Rule 278 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995. The reason for dismissal as given in the order of revision by respondent No. 1 is vague and is not tenable. There has been utter violation of the principles of natural justice. So the order should be treated as non est. As such the petitioner prays for setting aside the order dated October 24, 1997 as well as the order dated May 30, 2000 since that order of respondent No. 3 also was passed behind the petitioner's back. The contention of the respondent in the affidavit -in -opposition is that no relief should be granted as the petitioner is guilty of laches and as the petitioner allowed the time to pass. The petitioner lacked alertness. Respondent No. 1 having complied with the provisions of Rule 278 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 properly, the order of dismissal of the revision by him on account of default is lawful and is not liable to be set aside. The further contention of the respondent is that there being no revision pending, application for settlement before the designated authority, respondent No. 3, is not maintainable in law and as such the dismissal order has been rightly passed by respondent No. 3 and no notice in such a case is required to be given upon the party. The application therefore is liable to be dismissed.
(3.) THE questions that require determination are as follows : (No. 1) - -Whether the West Bengal Commercial Tax Appellate and Revisional Board (respondent No. 1) was justified under the facts and circumstances of the case in dismissing the petitioner's application for revision for default or in other words whether the Board was right in holding that there was due service of notice as per law on the petitioner informing the date of hearing before the Board ? (No. 2) - -Whether the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes - -the designated authority under the West Bengal Sales Tax (Settlement of Dispute) Act, 1999 (respondent No. 3) was justified in passing the impugned order dated May 30, 2000 of rejection of petitioner's application without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner?;