IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Kausik Chanda R.V.W.O No.5 of 2024 with I.A. No. G.A. 2 of 2024 SALES TAX OFFICER, BARASAT CHARGE AND OTHERS -VERSUS-

SANJAY SUR AND ANOTHER For the petitioners : Mr. Md. T. M. Siddiqui, Sr. Adv., Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty, Adv., Mr. Saptak Sanyal, Adv.

[

For the respondents : Mr. Prabhat Kr. Singh, Adv., Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, Adv.

Hearing concluded on : 17.12.2025 Judgment on : 02.02.2026 Kausik Chanda, J.:-

By filing this review application, the revenue seeks review of an order dated April 10, 2023 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. Before delving into the merits of the review application, it is necessary to outline the factual context in which the order dated April

10, 2023 was passed.

2. The writ petitioners are engaged in the cotton trade and are predominantly exporters. For the 3rd and 4th quarters of the assessment year 2010–11, the writ petitioners applied for 73 declarations in Form “H” before the Sales Tax Officer, Barasat Charge, in order to obtain certain export-related benefits.

3. By an order dated March 3, 2013, the Sales Tax Officer rejected the writ petitioners’ request for issuance of Form “H”. Challenging the said order, the writ petitioners filed an application under Section 86 of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 before the Joint Commissioner, Sales Tax, 24 Parganas Circle.

4. By an order dated March 26, 2014, the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, 24 Parganas Circle allowed the writ petitioners’ prayer and directed issuance of 73 Form “H” declarations. Thereafter, the said officer purported to undertake a “suo motu review” of his own order dated March 26, 2014 and, by an order dated July 23, 2014, upheld the earlier order.

5. Following the said “suo motu review”, the revenue filed an application under Section 85 of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 before the Senior Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, 24 Parganas Circle, challenging the order dated July 23, 2014.

6. By an order dated January 7, 2015, the Senior Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, 24 Parganas Circle, after hearing the parties, directed that Form “H” may be issued only in respect of six sellers located outside the State of West Bengal, in accordance with law.

7. The said order dated January 7, 2015 was challenged by the writ petitioners by filing WPO No. 782 of 2015. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court, by an order dated April 10, 2023, disposed of the writ petition by quashing the order of the Senior Joint Commissioner.

8. Thereafter, the present review application has been filed by the revenue seeking review of the said order dated April 10, 2023.

9. Mr. Talay Masud Siddiqui, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the revenue, submits that the order dated April 10, 2023 cannot be sustained. He contends that the learned Single Judge proceeded on an erroneous premise by framing the issue as whether the Commissioner/Joint Commissioner under the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 can invoke the power of suo motu revision under Section 85 twice. According to Mr. Siddiqui, the Commissioner/Joint Commissioner has not invoked such power twice under Section 85. Rather, the order passed by the Joint Commissioner under Section 86 was revised by the Senior Joint Commissioner under Section 85. Therefore, it is argued, the learned Judge proceeded on an incorrect foundation and wrongly quashed the order dated January 7, 2015.

10. Mr. Siddiqui further submits that before the learned Single Judge the writ petitioners had challenged the vires of Section 85 of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and Rules 143(1F) and 143(1). However, before this Court, the arguments made proceeded in an entirely different direction.

11. Mr. Siddiqui specifically contends that an order of revision passed under Section 86 by a Joint Commissioner can, in fact, be revised by the Senior Joint Commissioner under Section 85. Drawing attention to the phr