HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
Indrajit Mahanty, CJ., S.G. Chattopadhyay, J.
Abul Hashem - Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura & Ors. - Respondents
CRP No. 21 of 2022
Decided On : 13-04-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. tribunal's authority under the tvat act. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner's objections and arguments on tribunal's findings. (Para 4) |
| 3. tribunal's necessity to respect prior court judgments. (Para 5) |
| 4. order for reassessment and directions to the assessing officer. (Para 6 , 7) |
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. 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.
The Tribunal must avoid unnecessary findings and adhere to binding judgments from higher courts during tax assessments and re-assessments.
The court established that a review petition cannot be used to reargue settled issues and must demonstrate an apparent error on the face of the record.
Availability of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to maintainability of writ petition.
A reassessment under Section 43 of the OVAT Act requires the STO to form an independent opinion on whether there was escapement of taxable turnover, and cannot simply accept the objection of the audi....
Assessments beyond five years are invalid without proper notice, and best judgment assessments require rejection of returns, which was not adhered to in this case.
The appellate Tribunal exceeded its authority by adjudicating a matter remanded for fresh consideration without allowing proper verification of records by the Assessing Officer.
Reassessment proceedings without prior assessment are not justified under the relevant provisions of the Act.
Assessment orders under the OVAT Act must adhere to principles of natural justice, including providing an opportunity for a hearing; reliance on non-existent documents renders the assessment invalid.
Section 56 of the VAT Act would reveal that the section has wide power, but seeking of permission by the assessing authority for making reassessment of the dealer is not conferred under the said prov....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.