Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 829 (JHR)

Chandi Prasad Nagelia v. State of Jharkhand

2013-07-09

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
ORDER I.A. No. 2804 of 2013 The petitioner is allowed to correct the description of the respondent no. 3 for which the instant interlocutory application has been preferred as according to him it is the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Urban Circle, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum who is the appropriate authority instead of Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Dhurwa, Ranchi. Let the said correction be carried out during in the course of the day in red ink at the relevant place in the main writ application. 2. I.A. No. 2804 of 2013 is accordingly, disposed of. W.P.C. No.2341 of 2013 3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the Sub Divisional Magistrate cum Certificate Officer, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur has proceeded for recovery of the Sales Tax dues amounting to Rs. 1,98,68,749/- on account of M/s Ambika Trading Company, Bistupur, Jamshedpur of which the petitioner was a partner by taking coercive step by issuing bailable warrant dated 12.2.2013, which is impugned herein (Annexure-5). It, however appears that the petitioner has already preferred a revision before the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Urban Circle, Jamshedpur against the impugned demand and the revision application is still pending. Even the certificate proceeding initiated against the petitioner has still not been finally determined and now a fresh demand of Rs. 1,98,68,749/- has been made instead of earlier demand of Rs. 1,88,86,542/-. 4. In these circumstance, since the revision application is pending as also the certificate proceeding, which has yet not been finally determined, the appropriate remedy before the petitioner is to approach the Revisional Authority for staying of the impugned demand if he is able to satisfy the same. At the same time he has opportunity to demonstrate his defence before the Certificate Officer also where the amount are to be recovered. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however submits that because of coercive step being taken against the petitioner, he is unable to approach the certificate officer. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent- State, however submits that the fresh impugned demand has not been stayed by the Revisional authority after the matter was earlier remanded. Further, the petitioner is not cooperating with the certificate officer as a result of which warrant of arrest has been issued. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent- State, however submits that the fresh impugned demand has not been stayed by the Revisional authority after the matter was earlier remanded. Further, the petitioner is not cooperating with the certificate officer as a result of which warrant of arrest has been issued. 7. Having heard the counsel for the parties, in the facts and circumstance of the case, it appears that the petitioner has already approached the Revisional authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Urban Circle, Jamshedpur against the demand of Rs. 1,98,68,749/- which is still pending before him and even the certificate proceeding is still pending before the concerned authority i.e. S.D.M. cum Certificate Officer, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur. In such circumstance, the petitioner has adequate remedy to either seek stay of the impugned demand before the Revisional Authority and at the same time approach the Certificate Officer and defend himself in the certificate proceeding. 8. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the matter at this stage. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by allowing the petitioner to approach the Revisional authority i.e. Respondent No.3, the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Urban Circle, Jamshedpur as also the respondent no. 2, S.D.M. cum Certificate Officer, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur within a period of 2 weeks preferably on 22/23rd July, 2013 respectively. The concerned Revisional authority as well as certificate officer shall proceed in accordance with law in the pending proceedings before them by taking into account the explanation furnished by the petitioner. 9. For the period of 3 weeks from today the impugned warrant of arrest shall be kept in abeyance. 10. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid term. Petition disposed of.