Archana Bazaz vs. Senior Joint Commissioner Of Revenue,State Tax And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Archana Bazaz, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent GST authorities (Nos. 1-5) to remove goods belonging to respondent No. 6 from her godown. The petitioner had a leave and licence agreement with respondent No. 6 for the godown, which expired on March 31, 2025. Subsequently, GST authorities initiated search and seizure proceedings, leading to the sealing of the godown. The petitioner argued that she could no longer demand licence fees as the agreement had ended and respondent No. 6 was using the sealed godown as an excuse not to pay. Respondent No. 6, a defunct company, claimed inability to shift its goods due to the sealed premises and lack of alternative space.
Held
The Court noted that respondent No. 6 had also filed a writ petition (WPA No. 7609 of 2025) seeking directions for the GST authorities to take possession of the goods. With the consent of respondent No. 6's advocate, the Court directed that the seized goods be dealt with by the GST authorities (respondent Nos. 1-5) at the risk and cost of respondent No. 6. The Court further held that if respondent No. 6 failed to cooperate, the GST authorities were at liberty to deal with or dispose of the goods in accordance with law. Consequentially, the GST authorities were directed to hand over possession of the godown to the petitioner within three months from the date of the order. The Court clarified that any expenses incurred by the GST authorities for storing the goods would be borne by respondent No. 6. Given that respondent No. 6 is a defunct company, any required notices are to be served on its advocate-on-record, and such service will be considered valid if made within six months.
Key Issues
1. Whether the GST authorities (respondent Nos. 1-5) should be directed to remove the seized goods of respondent No. 6 from the petitioner's godown, which has been sealed by the authorities, and consequently hand over possession of the godown to the petitioner, considering the expiry of the leave and licence agreement between the petitioner and respondent No. 6. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the licence agreement for the godown had expired, and she could no longer claim licence fees. She argued that respondent No. 6 was using the sealed godown as a pretext to avoid paying licence fees. The petitioner sought the removal of goods and possession of her property. Revenue/State's arguments: The GST authorities submitted that while they had initiated inspection, it was respondent No. 6's failure to cooperate that prevented the inspection. They stated that respondent No. 6 was not cooperating with the authorities. Respondent No. 6's arguments: Respondent No. 6, represented by its advocate, stated that as a defunct company, it was unable to provide an alternative location for shifting its goods.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2025 Tax & ors.
Mr. Aurin Chakraborty Mr. Pradip Kr. Sarawagi
…. for the petitioner Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty Mr. Saptak Sanyal
….for the State Mr. Akash Chakraborty
…… for the respondent No. 6
The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, praying for a direction upon the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to remove the seized goods of the respondent No. 6 from the godown space admeasuring 6325 Sq.ft. on the ground floor of the building situated at premises No. 1/1A, Nawabputty Street, Cossipore, P.S. Chitpur, Kolkata- 700 002 (hereinafter referred to as the said godown) belonging to the petitioner.
According to Mr. Aurin Chakraborty, learned advocate representing the petitioner, the respondent No. 6 had entered into a leave and licence agreement with the petitioner on 21st September, 2024 in respect of the above godown. The same was subsisting and valid for a period of 6 months. The tenure of the licence agreement came to an end on 31st March, 2025. In the interregnum, a search and seizure proceedings had been initiated at the aforesaid godown wherein the goods of respondent No. 6 had been stacked, and on the basis thereof, the godown had been sealed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 3. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate representing the petitioner would submit that the godown cannot be occupied without making payment of licence fees. Since the licence agreement has already expired, the petitioner can no longer demand such fees from the respondent No. 6. 4. According to Mr. Chakraborty, the respondent No. 6 is trying to wriggle out of its liability to pay licence fees on the ground that it has no access to the godown and is unable to remove the goods, by reasons of the godown being sealed.
Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty, learned advocate appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. He would submit that although, the concerned respondents had taken steps to carry out an inspection of the godown, however, it is by reasons of the failure on the part of the respondent No. 6 to cooperate with the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 that no such inspection was possible. According to Mr. Chakrabroty, the respondent No. 6 has not been cooperating with the authorities.
In response to a query of the Court, Mr. Chakraborty representing the respondent no.6 would submit that since, the respondent No. 6 is a defunct company, it is not in a position to provide for alternative place for shifting its goods.
Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and noting that the respondent no. 6 has also filed a writ petition being WPA No. 7609 of 2025 praying for a direction upon the GST authorities to take possession of the goods and upon ascertaining from Mr. Akash Chakraborty that the respondent no. 6 has no objection of the goods being dealt with, let the above goods be dealt with by the respondent nos. 1 to 5 at the risk and costs of the respondent No.
I am also of the view that in the event the respondent No. 6 does not cooperate, the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 shall be at liberty to deal with or dispose of the said goods in accordance with law and shall consequentially make over possession of the godown in favour of the petitioner within a period of three months from date. It is also made clear that if the respondent nos. 1 to 5 are required to take on rent any space for storage of goods, they shall do so at the risk and costs of the respondent No. 6. 8. Since, the learned advocate for the respondent No. 6 has stated that respondent No. 6 is a defunct company, I am of the view that in the event, any notice is required to be served, the same shall be served on the advocate-on-record for the respondent no.6 and the service shall constitute a valid service provided the same is made within a period of 6 months from date.
With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.