REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.   6692     OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.2984 of 2008)

The Director of Entry Tax & Ors.  ....Appellants

Versus

Sunrise Timber Company ....Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.  

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of

the Calcutta High Court summarily dismissing the writ petition filed by the

petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the

1

‘Constitution’).  Challenge was to the order dated 24.7.1997 passed by the

West  Bengal  Taxation  Tribunal  (in  short  ‘the  Tribunal’)  in  R.N-204  of

1996.

3. Respondent had filed application under Section 8 of the West Bengal

Taxation  Tribunal  Act,  1987  (in  short  ‘the  Act’)  in  the  nature  of  an

application under Article 226 of the Constitution.  The question raised was

certain  amount  collected  from the  respondents  in  view of  assessment  or

otherwise  as  entry  tax  should  be  refunded  along  with  interest,  and  the

documents seized on 26.5.1992 should be released and compensation is to

be paid by the officials for loss of reputation.   

4. Stand of the appellant was that the petitioner before the Tribunal in

collusion  with  others  imported  consignments  of  timber  being  specified

goods under the schedule appended to Taxes on Entry of Goods into the

Calcutta  Metropolitan  Area Act,  1972  (in  short  ‘TAGMA Act’)  into  the

Calcutta Metropolitan Area from places outside the State for sale,  use or

consumption  therein  without  payment  of  necessary  Entry  Tax  and  also

forged documents thereby attracting action in terms of Section 24(1)(a) and

24(1)(b) of TAGMA Act besides criminal offences of forgery, cheating.  It

2

was pointed  out  that  payment of  Entry Tax was  evaded by using  and/or

producing all such forged documents.               

5. The Tribunal accepted the stand of the respondent that he was being

harassed and the entire  exercise of seizure and the collection of tax was

without legal sanction.  

6. Appellants preferred Writ Petition before the High Court. As noted

above, the High Court disposed of the writ petition holding as follows:

“Having heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and after going through the materials on record, we find that  the  learned  Tribunal  has  dealt  with  the  matter extensively  and  there  is  no  illegality  or  irregularity  in respect of the order so passed by the learned Tribunal.

Hence, the application is dismissed.”   

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the approach of the

High  Court  is  clearly  erroneous.   Several  questions  of  importance  were

involved.  The Tribunal did not examine the issues in the right perspective

and came to abrupt conclusions contrary to the evidence on record.

3

8. There  is  no  appearance  on  behalf  of  the  respondents  in  spite  of

service of notice.

9. We find that  the High Court  has not  dealt  with the various stands

taken  by  the  appellants.  It  has  come  to  an  abrupt  conclusion  that  the

Tribunal  has dealt  with the  matter  extensively.  The issues raised by the

appellants were not without substance.  It is another thing whether the same

would  have  been  accepted.   The  manner  in  which  the  High  Court  has

summarily dismissed the writ petition cannot be countenanced.

10. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and

remit the matter to it  for fresh consideration in accordance with law. We

make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the

case.   

11. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.           

....................................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

……..…………............................J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

New Delhi November 18, 2008

4