SAGA INSTRUMENTS Vs. C.T.O., COLLEGE STREET CHARGE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 which is in the nature a writ application, the petitioner has challenged the notices (annexure "C") and the proposed reassessment proceeding and prays for quashing the same.

(2.) IT may be mentioned at the outset that this case has a chequred history. A writ challenging the notice and the proposed reassessment proceeding was filed in the High Court, Calcutta, which was registered as W.P. No. 15315 of 2000. Honourable Justice K.J. Sengupta, by order dated September 26, 2000 disposed of the writ by directing the petitioner to file the application before this Tribunal. Accordingly this application registered as RN -340 of 2000 was filed on November 29, 2000. A bench of this Tribunal at the very outset held that the application was miserably barred by limitation and the explanation given for the delay of four years since October 15, 1996 was not at all reasonable. Therefore the condonation application and the main application suffered rejection by order dated February 15, 2001. The petitioner went against that order of rejection, before the division Bench of the honourable High Court, which by order dated July 24, 2001 held, on the submission of the advocate for the Revenue and the advocate for the petitioner not opposing such submission - -that the main challenge by the applicant is not the order dated October 15, 1996 but the subsequent notices with regard to the regular assessment. That being so, the honourable Court set aside the order of the Tribunal - -rejecting condonation of delay and the main application and directed the Tribunal to reconsider the matter in the light of the prayer made by the petitioner in the application under Section 8 of the aforesaid Act. When the matter again came up here, the petitioner prayed for incorporating some matters in the body of the main application and also some added prayers by way of amendment. That application praying for amendment was rejected by this Tribunal by order dated April 12, 2002. Thus the petitioner's prayer regarding quashing the order dated October 15, 1996 (annexure "A") and order dated December 27, 1996 (annexure "B") as made in the amendment application - -was rejected by the aforesaid order dated April 12, 2002.

(3.) THE only point for consideration is :