The main legal point established in the judgment is the authority's duty to consider all points of fact and law agitated by the petitioner and to pass a reasoned order within a specified period, as well as the consequences of non-compliance with court directions.

Deepak Gupta, J.

The petitioner company is duly registered under the Indian Companies Act. It has business dealings all over the country. It is also registered as a dealer in the State of Tripura under the Tripura Sales Tax Act.

2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner company had entered into an agreement with the Airport Authority of India. Under this contract when the modernization of the Agartala airport was taking place, the petitioner company was to provide and install air conditioning, ventilation and humidification. The contract was entered into in the year 2000 and the work was completed in the year 2005-2006. Presently, the company is entrusted with the annual maintenance contract of air conditioning etc. in Tripura Airport.

3. Notices were issued to the petitioner for assessment of returns for the year 1998-1999 to 2004-2005. A common order was passed on 30th June 2007 in respect of all the five years and the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had deposited excess amounts in the years 1998-1999, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. This order was challenged by the assessee and the appellate authority vide order dated 10.03.2008 set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and remanded the matter back to the Superintendent of Taxes to complete the assessment. One of the observations of the appellate authority was that in the invoices raised by this very dealer in connection with different contract works the dealer had charged 20% on works contract tax and therefore, the assessing authority should examine and clarify whether the dealer has actually deposited 20% tax charged in the bills relating to works contract or paid lesser amount of tax. Thereafter fresh assessment order was passed and the Assessing Officer held that the assessee had paid excess tax of Rs.10,900/- for the year 1998-1999, Rs.70,000/- for the year 1999-2000, Rs.1,43,012/- for the year 2000-2001, Rs.5,72,214/- for the year 2001-2002, Rs.3,03,410/- for the year 2002-2003, Rs.1,90,143/- for the year 2003-2004 and Rs.1,75,912/- for the year 2004-2005 i.e. a total amount of Rs.14,65,601/- . This assessment order was passed on 21st May, 2008. On 8th July, 2008 the assessee through its counsel demanded refund of Rs.14,65,591/-(instead of Rs.14,65,601/-). A reminder was issued on 8th December, 2008. Another reminder on 4th January, 2011 and finally a notice under Section 80 C.P.C was issued on 29th August, 2011. Thereafter an order was passed by the Commissioner of Taxes, respondent No.2 on 5th April, 2012 i.e. almost after four years issuing notice to the assessee as to why the assessment order dated 21.05.2008 for the years 1998-1999 to 2004-2005 should not be cancelled and the matter remanded to the Superintendent of Taxes for re-assessment.

4. The main ground which weighed with the revenue was that on the total contract of Rs.3,05,11,585.00 the assessee had levied tax of 20% whereas only 4% tax was payable and, therefore, the assessee was liable to deposit this amount in the State treasury. The other ground was that the Assessing Authority had exempted the assessee from paying tax on three imported chiller machines of the value of Rs.86,25,600/-.

5. The petitioner thereafter approach this Court challenge this order on various grounds. This Court noted all the facts and the authorities referred to by the learned counsel for the assessee and disposed of the writ petition in the following terms:

“7. We have already made the observation that the Revisional Authority has not finally decided the points mentioned in paragraph 6 of the impugned order dated 26.03.2012 and for which the writ petitioner had been asked to appear before the Revisional Authority. However, in the present case, as the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contends that the point in the paragraph 6(v) of the impugned order dated 26.03.2012 was decided wrongly, we direct the Revisional Authority to