Allowed

Mahadeb Majumdar v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Barasat Charge and Others

Calcutta HC16 Aug 2021WPA/11455/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petitioner challenged a non-speaking order rejecting an application for revocation of cancellation of registration. The High Court set aside the order and directed the respondents to consider a fresh reply on merit within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of rejection of application dated 25/03/2021 set aside. Direction to consider fresh reply on merit within eight weeks.

Mahadeb Majumdar Vs Assistant Commissioner of State… — Company and Corporate | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

S/L 12 16.08.2021 Court. No. 2 cm

¶2

WPA 11455 of 2021 Mahadeb Majumdar Vs. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Barasat Charge, & Ors. (Through Video Conference)

¶3

Mr. Sumit Ghosh Mr. Souradeep Majumdar …. For the Petitioner Mr. A. Ray, Ld. G.P. Mr. S. Mukherjee Mr. D. Ghosh …. For the Respondents.

¶4

Heard both the parties.

¶5

In this writ petition petitioner has challenged the impugned order of rejection of application for revocation of cancellation of registration of the petitioner, dated 25^th March, 2021 as it appears at page 32 of the wit petition, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Barasat/ respondent No.1. The main ground of the petitioner challenging this impugned order is that the same has been passed in total nonapplication of mind and is non-speaking order which appears to be true on my perusal. Petitioner submits that time to file the aforesaid show-cause notice is seven days as per Statute and he had filed the reply to the show-cause notice within four days that is, 19^th March, 2021 as it appears at Page 21 of the writ petition. Yet, the respondent No.1 has rejected the same without giving any reason and without passing

¶6

¶7

any speaking order and rejecting it solely on the ground that it was not within specified time.

¶8

Considering the submission of the parties this writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order dated 25^th March, 2021 with a direction upon the respondent No.1 to consider a fresh reply of the petitioner dated 19^th March, 2021 as it appears at Page 21 of the writ petition on merit in accordance with law and by passing a reasoned and speaking order and after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his authorised representative within eight weeks from the date of communication of the order and communicate his decision to the petitioner within one week thereafter.

¶9

It is recorded that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case and the respondent No.1 shall decide the case of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law.

¶10

WPA 11455 of 2021 is disposed of.

¶11

(Md. Nizamuddin, J.)

Mahadeb Majumdar v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Barasat Charge and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahadeb Majumdar v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Barasat Charge and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Agarwal Vs Income Tax Officer ,Ward -45(1) Kolkata & Ors.

Hindustan Windows Mfg Co. & Anr. Vs the Sales Tax Officer, C.A.U. & Ors.

M/S S.K. Iron Industries Vs Senior Jt. Commissioner , Commercial Taxes & Ors.

Kritin Bothra Vs Ddit(Inv) Unit 3,KOL and Anr.

Tata Chemicals Ltd. & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Shristi Infrastructure Dev. Corp. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.