Back
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
T. Amarnath Goud, Arindam Lodh, JJ.
Pankaj Behari Saha - Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) 1110 of 2019
Decided On : 03-08-2022
JUDGMENT
1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or mandamus or appropriate writ or direction or order
(i) For enforcement of the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution of India.
(ii) Violation of Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
(iii) Legality and validity of Notification dated 04.06.2018 issued by the Commissioner of Taxes, Government of Tripura in the purported exercise of powers under Section 85 of the TRIPURA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT , 2004 delegating the powers of the Commissioner of Taxes under Section 31 of the Act to all the Superintendent of taxes posted in Tax Audit Cell to be exercised within the State of Tripura with effect from 31.03.2018.
(iv) Notice No. F(1)/ST/TAX/AUDIT/UDP/2018/2723-24 dated 04.04.2018 issued by the Superintendent of Taxes, Tax Audit Cell, HQ, Gurkhabasti, Agartala in purported exercise of powers under section 31(1) of the Tripura VAT Act, 2004 directing the petitioner to produce or cause to be produced the accounts and documents relating to the turnover of sales and/or purchase for the period from 2013-2014 to 2017-2018 for scrutiny of the returns furnished by the petitioner.
(v) Notice No.F(1)/ST/TAX/AUDIT/UDP/2018/2083 dated 22.02.2019 issued by the Superintendent of Taxes, Tax Audit Cell, HQ, Gurkhabasti, Agartala directing the petitioner to submit the segregated accounts of opening stock, closing stock, fright charge, import fee, bid money etc, in respect of imported and domestic goods for assessment years 2013-14 to 2016-17 for assessment.
(vi) Notice No.F(1)/ST/TAX/AUDIT/UDP2018/2777 dated 26.02.2019 issued by the Superintendent of Taxes, Tax Audit Cell, HQ, Gurkhabasti, Agartala directing the petitioner to show cause as to why penalty @ Rs.100/- per day should not be imposed for the alleged delay in submission of returns subject to a maximum of Rs.10,000/- as per section 25(4)(d) of Tripura VAT Act, 2004 for assessment years 2013-14 to 2016-17.
(vii) Notice No.F(1)/ST/TAX/AUDIT/UDP/2018/3034 dated 01.03.2019 issued by the Superintendent of Taxes, Tax Audit Cell, HQ, Gurkhabasti, Agartala informing the petitioner that as per the returns furnished, the dealer was liable to pay the balance amount of tax stated in the notice for the Month of May, 2013 to January, 2014 during the assessment year 2013-14 and directing the petitioner to show cause as to why amount of balance tax payable along with interest shall not be recovered and also to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed as per the provisions of Tripura VAT Act, 2004 and Rules, 2005.
(viii) Notice No. F(1)ST/TAX/AUDIT/UDP/2018/3496 dated 12.03.2019 issued by the Superintendent of Taxes, Tax Audit Cell, HQ, Gurkhabasti, Agartala informing the petitioner that as per Rule 20 of the Tripura VAT Rules, 2005 every registered dealer liable to pay tax have to deposit 90% of the tax for the month or quarter ending on 31st March of a year within 31st March of that year and since 90% of the total tax was not deposited within 31st March during the year 2013-14 to 2016-17 directed the petitioner to show cause as to why interest should not e charged on the balance amount of 90% of tax payable as per the provisions of Tripura VAT, Act, 2004 and Rules, 2005.
(ix) Notice No. F(1)ST/TAX/AUDIT/UDP/2018/3605 dated 16.03.2019 issued by the Superintendent of Taxes, Tax Audit Cell, HQ, Gurkhabasti, Agartala directing the petitioner to show cause as to why the different in amount of purchase should not be considered as concealment and as to why the same should not be put to tax by determining its turnover and as to why in addition to VAT, due, interest and penalty should not be impose for concealment of purchase and its relative turnover.
(x) Order of Assessment dated 30.03.2019 passed by the Superintendent of Taxes, Tax Audit Cell, HQ, Agartala for the Assessment year 2013-2014 to 20
Delegation of authority in taxation must strictly adhere to statutory provisions, maintaining clear distinctions between audit, assessment, and collection roles.
Point of Law : Though appointed (clearly with reference to section 4 of the Act, no function came to be entrusted to them under the Customs Act, in absence of any sub-delegation made in their favour ....
The court affirmed that once a delegated authority has exercised revisionary powers under the OST Act, the original authority cannot reinitiate proceedings, ensuring that statutory appeals remain the....
The assessment under Section 42 of the Odisha Value Added Tax Act is invalid if based on an Audit Visit Report submitted after the statutory deadline, thus protecting the integrity of tax procedures.
The Vigilance & Enforcement Department has the authority to inspect premises of taxable traders and share relevant information with the Tax department. Impugned notices must have proper authorization....
authorization to audit under Section 43 read with Rule 59(1)(7) by itself does not enable audit officer to undertake assessment, we set aside all the assessment orders and consequential orders, if an....
Re-Assessment - Liability to pay tax - Orders of audit are barred by limitation and thus without jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court has a discretion to entertain or not to....
“there is difference between existence of jurisdiction and exercise of jurisdiction. The existence of jurisdiction is reflected by the fact of amenabilities of the jurisdiction to attack in the colla....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
