Page 1 of 3

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA

_A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
IA No.01 of 2021 IN WP(C) No.832 of 2020 (D/O)
For Applicant(s) : Mrs. S. Deb (Gupta), Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.K. Dhar, Sr. G.A.

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY

_O_ R_ D_ E_ R_
05/01/2021
(Akil kureshi, CJ)

Applicant is the original petitioner of WP(C) No.832 of 2020.

This petition was disposed of by an order dated 18.12.2020 with the following

directions.

“Under the circumstances, the respondents shall release the vehicle and
the goods upon the petitioner giving Bank guarantee of 25% of the said
sum of Rs.12,48,530/- and furnishing further Bank
guarantee/immovable security for the remaining sum to the satisfaction
of the assessing officer. As soon as the petitioner fulfills these
conditions the vehicle and the goods shall be released.”

The applicant thereupon provided immovable security of 75% of

the disputed amount before the concerned officer and further furnished Bank

guarantee for the remaining 25% of the amount on 23.12.2020. Despite this,

Shri D.C. Dey who is a Superintendent of Sales Tax, Churaibari Enforcement

Wing, refused to release the vehicle and the goods and instead on 24.12.2020

conveyed to the petitioner as under :

“ Now, it is stated that this Office requires Bank Guarantee 25% of the
amount of Rs.12,48,530/- and further Bank Guarantee for the
remaining sum i.e. 75% of the sum of Rs.12,48,530/-. Thus, it is
requested to provide 100% Bank Guarantee along with the Form GST
MOV-08 (Bond for provisional release of goods and conveyance) dully
filled up, necessary for release of detained vehicle and the taxable
 Page 2 of 3

goods seized vide Seizure Case No. CEW-40/11/2020-21, dated 21-11-

2020.”

The applicant has therefore filed this application for appropriate

directions. In the first session we had in no uncertain terms expressed our

extreme displeasure at the manner in which the Superintendent of Sales Tax

has acted. Ex facie his action is in defiance of the Court orders and directions.

In the first session we had passed the following order :

“The Superintendent of Sales Tax, Churaibari Enforcement wing has

passed an order 24th December, 2020 which is in utter defiance of our
order dated 18th December, 2020 in W(C) No.832/2020. Contrary to
our directions the said authority is insisting on the petitioner providing
Bank guarantee of 100% of the disputed amount. The petitioner has
already provided Bank guarantee of 25% of the disputed amount.
Remaining amount is covered by security of immovable property. The
vehicle and the goods shall be released forthwith failing which we may
initiate action personally against the concerned officer.”

This order was passed in presence of Shri Dhar who appears for

the respondents on advance copy and requested him to convey this order to the

concerned officer and to ensure that the goods and the vehicle are released by 2

o’clock today. In the second session when the Court reassembled Shri Dhar

conveyed that despite this communication the concerned officer is refusing to

release the vehicle and the goods. Along with Mr. Dhar, Law Officer Shri S.

Datta was also present before the Court. He also confirmed that the said

Superintendent Shri D.C. Dey is still insisting on the petitioner providing 100%

Bank guarantee only upon which he would release the vehicle and the goods.

It is unfortunate that a Government officer is openly and

arrogantly flouting the Courts order and directions. Our order dated 18.12.2020
 Page 3 of 3

was clear. Even if there was slightest possibility of doubt the same should have

been clear when today morning we recorded that the stand of the

Superintendent is not correct. His insistence on collecting 100% Bank

guarantee from the petitioner is now in defiance of our further order passed

today.

Under the circumstance, the respondent No.3 Shri D.C. Dey

Superintendent of Sales Tax, Churaibari Enforcement Wing is directed to

release the vehicle and the goods ‘forthwith’. In view of his obstinent stand

which prima facie we find is in utter contempt of the Court’s orders we

institute suo motu contempt proceedings against him for which there shall be

notice returnable tomorrow (6th January, 2021). He shall remain personally

present before the Court at 10.30 a.m. sharp to answer the charges of contempt.

A copy of this order may be provided to the learned counsel Shri

Dhar who is requested to communicate the same to the concerned officer for its

compliance. The Registry shall also forward this order to the said officer on his

e-mail address which shall be supplied by the Law Officer present before us.

We can only hope that the Superintendent shall not show any

further bravado by not complying with this order in its entirety failing which

we will immediately consider issuing non-bailable warrant, have him arrested

and brought before the Court.

(S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY), J (AKIL KURESHI), CJ

Dipesh