IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(T) No. 4882 of 2011
M/s. Ambika Trading Company, Bistupur ... Petitioner
Vrs.
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ... Respondents
With
W.P.(T) No. 4886 of 2011
M/s. Ambika Trading Company, Bistupur ... Petitioner
Vrs.
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ... Respondents
With
W.P.(T) No. 4888 of 2011
M/s. Ambika Trading Company, Bistupur ... Petitioner
Vrs.
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ... Respondents
With
W.P.(T) No. 4897 of 2011
M/s. Ambika Trading Company, Bistupur ... Petitioner
Vrs.
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.P. BHATT
------
For the Petitioner : M/s. J.N.Pandey
For the Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Shankar, S.C.-I
------
Order No. 02 Dated: 23rd September, 2011.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
All these writ petitions have been filed for different assessment
years but the issues involved are the same, hence, they are being decided
by this common order.
The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 15.3.2011
passed by the Assessing Officer, after observing that because of total
non-cooperation of the writ petitioner and because of non-production of
any evidence, the authority had no option but to pass the order. The writ
petitioner without challenging the order dated 15.3.2011 has approached
this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India so as to challenge
the observation of the Assessing Officer with respect to the petitioner’s
total non-cooperation and non-production of evidence.
We may observe here that as back as on 01.08.2008, when the
matter was considered by the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, the Tribunal
has observed that if the petitioner is not cooperating and responding to the
notice, the Lower Court will be at liberty to pass order as per Law. At this
Juncture, it will be relevant to mention here that proceeding is in
2.
relation to the years 1988-1989, 1989-1990, 1990-1991 and 1991-1992.
From this fact itself, it is clear that it was a very old matter before the
authorities and that too in relation to the Revenue of the State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehementally submitted that
when there is a flagrant violation of Law and principles of natural justice,
then the Court has ample jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India to correct the error by exercising the supervisory powers. There is
no dispute about this proposition for which no authority is needed and in
appropriate case the Court interferes even when there is remedy available
in alternative forum even then the Court passes the order but it is not a
case of such type in any manner which is apparent from the facts of the
case.
Therefore, this court is declined to interfere in the impugned order
hence, the writ petitions which appear to be only abuse of the process of
the Court, are dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/-.
(Prakash Tatia, C.J.)
(P.P.Bhatt, J.)
D.S./Sudhir.