Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 388 (TRI)

Subhas Chandra Ghosh v. State of Tripura

2014-11-18

DEEPAK GUPTA, S.TALAPATRA

body2014
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, C.J. 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has submitted that the seizure of the cement which has been transported by him in Tripura is illegal since on the date of seizure i.e. 30th August, 2014 he held a valid license to bring cement into the State of Tripura without payment of tax. 2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner is a businessman dealing in the sale of various items. He was initially registered as a dealer under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 on 09.11.1976. He was permitted to deal in the resale of a large number of goods but cement or its substitute were not one of the goods which he was to deal with. The petitioner was again registered under the Sales Tax Act on 12.01.1977 and here also he was allowed to deal in many goods but cement was not one of the goods. The petitioner submitted an information sheet on 06.01.2005 in terms of the Tripura Value Added Tax and the following items are mentioned in the said information sheet: "MS Rod, MS Plate, Flush, Door Shutter, Door Window, Fittings, Stone, Sanitary Goods & Electrical Goods. 'Cement & Hardware Goods.'" 3. The words 'cement and hardware goods' which have been highlighted hereinabove, though in the same handwriting are not in the same ink or written with the same pen which is obvious from a glance of the information sheet. According to the petitioner, these words were there right from the very beginning and therefore, he believed that he had been granted registration for dealing in cement also. However, the stand of the State is that the registration which was granted to him in the year 2005 was with regard to item codes which have no connection with the cement. 4. We have perused the certificate of registration from the original file which was issued on 12th December, 2005 and in that certificate the word cement is not there. We also find that thereafter renewals were done and cement was never mentioned. A photocopy of this information sheet is also on the file at page No. 8 of the File bearing No. File-3 (CERTIFICATE) VAT and CST File w.e.f. 01.04.2014. Surprisingly, this photocopy does not tally with the original. The words 'cement and hardware goods' are not even there in this column of the photocopy. A photocopy of this information sheet is also on the file at page No. 8 of the File bearing No. File-3 (CERTIFICATE) VAT and CST File w.e.f. 01.04.2014. Surprisingly, this photocopy does not tally with the original. The words 'cement and hardware goods' are not even there in this column of the photocopy. There are some other changes also on the first page but we are not concerned with the same. This however, clearly indicates that somebody permitted the petitioner or his officials to make correction in the original information sheet at a later stage but those corrections could not be made in the photostat copy which also bears a photocopy of the stamp dated 06.01.2005. It is more apparent that these entries were made at a later stage. 5. According to the petitioner, on 30th August, 2014 the date when his goods were seized, on the same date amendment was made in the registration certificate and cement was included. The manner in which the certificate has been issued in an unholy haste creates a doubt in our mind as to whether this was done genuinely or not. On 30th August, 2014 the petitioner submitted an application for amendment of his certificate to include cement. The same day the officials concerned asked for reports from other officials. The report was supplied on the same day and the amendment also ordered on the same day. This is in total contrast to the second amendment application which was filed sometime in September, 2014 and allowed in November, 2014. 6. We have seldom seen Government offices, especially the Office of the Excise and Taxation in the State of Tripura working with the hurry which they have shown in this case. We do not want to say anything more in the matter but we definitely feel that this matter requires to be enquired into. We, therefore, direct the Commissioner of Taxes, Government of Tripura to personally conduct an inquiry into the matter. He shall find out whether the word cement was incorporated at a later stage or earlier and how the officials concerned managed to issue an amendment to the certificate on the same day when the application was filed and on the same day on which the goods of the petitioners were seized. This is a serious matter and requires to be dealt with seriously. This is a serious matter and requires to be dealt with seriously. The Commissioner shall ensure that a proper inquiry is conducted even if necessary, associate any police officials and get report from the Forensic Science Laboratory. The concerned officials shall be given a reasonable opportunity in accordance with the disciplinary rules to put forth their case. The inquiry should be completed latest within 3(three) months and not later than 28th February, 2015. Since there is a doubt as to whether the petitioner's amended certificate is genuine or not, we also issue the following directions: "(i) The Commissioner within 15(fifteen) days from today shall determine what is the tax, interest and penalty, if any, payable by treating this cement to be a mis-declared item. (ii) The petitioner shall deposit the amount of tax payable in cash and shall furnish bank guarantee for the amount of penalty and interest within a period of one week thereafter and on furnishing such cash deposit and bank guarantee, the cement shall be released to him." This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid terms.