Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 193 (TRI)

Abul Hashem v. State of Tripura

2022-04-13

INDRAJIT MAHANTY, S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY

body2022
JUDGMENT Indrajit Mahanty; CJ. - Heard Mr. Biplabedu Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also heard Mr. Asish Nandi, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents. 2. Challenge has been made in the present petition to an order passed by the Tribunal under Section 71 of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (TVAT Act, 2004 for short). It appears that the petitioner had moved an appeal under Section 71 of the TVAT Act and against an order passed by the Revisional Authority dated 21.06.2018 and against order passed under Section 31(1) of the TVAT Act by the assessing officer. On perusal of the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, it appears that the Tribunal has partly allowed the appeal inasmuch as set aside the levy of penalty under Section 25(4) of the TVAT Act and thereafter found no further reason to interfere with the order of the Revisional Authority. 3. It would be pertinent to note herein that the Revisional Authority i.e. the Commissioner of Taxes had set aside the order of assessment and had directed the Superintendent of Taxes, Charge- Bishalgarh (Assessing Authority) to make re-assessment after careful examination of the dealer's books of accounts along with DTR on which the question arise by the dealer. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the present case highlighted the fact that the Tribunal had taken into consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Tripura in case of Swapan Kumar Saha v. State of Tripura and others in WP(C) No.235 of 2011 and had extracted Section 5(2) of the TVAT Act. Thereafter, the Court was of the opinion that the submission of the petitioner in this regard contains no merit and is liable to be rejected. The objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has no objection to the reassessment that may be carried out against the dealer for the assessment years in question, however, the findings of the Tribunal to the effect that the petitioner's contention had been rejected to that extent may be deleted. 5. We find merit in such submission inasmuch as the Tribunal has recorded the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Tripura in the aforesaid case and the said judgment is binding on all of us including the petitioner. There was no necessity for the Tribunal to have recorded such a finding. 6. 5. We find merit in such submission inasmuch as the Tribunal has recorded the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Tripura in the aforesaid case and the said judgment is binding on all of us including the petitioner. There was no necessity for the Tribunal to have recorded such a finding. 6. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of affirming the order passed by the Tribunal by deleting the observations of the Tribunal to the extent as noted hereinabove but the petitioner shall participate in the re-assessment proceedings before the assessing officer and the assessing officer shall take note of all earlier judgments passed by this Court in the matter. Since the matter has been long pending, the petitioner is directed to appear before the assessing officer on 2nd May, 2022 along with the copy of the order by which date the assessing officer shall do well to fix a schedule of hearing and decide the matter at an early date. 7. With these observations and directions, the present petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.