The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 46(1)(b) of the WBVAT Act, the principles of 'noscitur a sociis', and the applicability of the rule of ejusdem generis in the context of assessment proceedings initiated by the revenue.

JUDGMENT

T.S.Sivagnanam, J. - The petitioner/appellant in both the matters is a proprietorship concern registered as a dealer under the provisions of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 1956 (WBVAT) and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (CST). In this judgment and order the petitioner/appellant shall be referred to as the assessee and the respondent as the revenue.

2. In WPTT No 02 of 2018, the assessee has challenged the order passed by the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal in Case No. R.N 1540 of 2017 dated 22.12.2017. In MAT No 1911 of 2017, the assessee has challenged the correctness of the order in WP No. 23339 (W) of 2017 dated 11.09.2017 by which the writ petition filed by the assessee challenging the notice of assessment under Section 46 of WBVAT was dismissed.

3. The facts giving rise to both the matters are as hereunder. The revenue issued a notice under Section 46 read with Section 66 of WBVAT dated 16.08.2017. By the said notice the revenue was of the opinion that an assessment is required to be made under Section 46 of WBVAT as the assessee has carried forward excess ITC over Rs. 5,00,000/- to the next financial year. The said notice was challenged before the tribunal in Case No. R.N 1540 of 2017 on the ground that it is without jurisdiction as none of the grounds mentioned in the said provision are attracted for initiating assessment proceedings under Section 46. It appears that the tribunal disposed of the application at the admission stage by observing that, on going through the provisions of Section 46, it is found that none of the grounds for initiating assessment proceedings under the said provision were made out. The revenue contended that certain provisions of Section 47 would apply. The tribunal without assigning any reasons stated that they are not satisfied with the explanation given by the revenue and accordingly quashed the notice dated 16.08.2017 with liberty to the revenue to act strictly as per the provision of the law. The revenue filed Review Case No. RW 02 of 2017 to review the order passed by the tribunal dated 13.09.2017 in R.N No. 1540 of 2017. It was contended that identical notice dated 16.08.2017 was issued to the assessee under Section 9 of the CST Act read with Section 46 of the WBVAT on the same ground that excess ITC over Rs. 5,00,000/- has been carried forward by the assessee to the next financial year. The said notice was challenged by the assessee in WP No. 23339(W) of 2017 on the same grounds which were canvassed before the tribunal challenging the notice dated 16.08.2017 under Section 46 of the WBVAT.

The Learned Single Bench by order dated 11.09.2017 dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the assessee cannot contend that the revenue has acted wholly without jurisdiction in issuing the notice and it is within his purview to take cognizance of the situation mentioned under Section 46(1)(b) of WBVAT as the revenue was prima facie satisfied that the State Government has suffered loss of revenue and there are adequate reasons for the purpose of calling for an explanation. Thus, the Learned Single Bench held that the notice is not vitiated by any perversity and cannot be interfered in a writ petition. The revenue filed the review petition before the tribunal by referring to the order passed in WP No. 23339(W) of 2017 dated 11.09.2017 on the ground that sub clause (b) of Subsection (1) of Section 46 provides for reasons to initiate proceedings of assessment which includes 'for any other reasons to be recorded in writing' by the Commissioner and such reasons was recorded in the notice. Secondly, it was contended that in so far as an identical notice issued under the CST Act, the validity of the notice was upheld by this Court and the writ petition filed by the assessee was dismissed considering the very same grounds raised by the assessee before the tribunal. The tribunal by order dated 06.12.2017 allowed the review petition and recalled the order passed earlier, dated 13.09.2017. The tribuna