IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ, BISWAJIT PALIT, J.
M/s. Sanrak Rubber - Appellant
Versus
The State of Tripura - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 710 of 2024
Decided On : 13-02-2025
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. T.K. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also heard Mr. P. Gautam, learned senior Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State.
2. The instant writ petition sought to challenge the impugned notice dated 18th October, 2024 issued under Section 36(1) of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (TVAT Act, 2004, for short) on the ground that such reopening of assessment beyond a period of three years from the date of the judgment or order is impermissible. The notice for reassessment dated 18th October, 2024 is in respect of financial years 2009-10 and 2010-11 whose assessments were completed on 12th December, 2014. Petitioner contended that pursuant to the Appellate Order dated 28th August, 2015 (Annexure-3) reassessment was done vide order dated 17th March, 2016 finding excess amount paid by the petitioner-assessee. The present proceedings seek to reopen a concluded assessment much beyond the period of three years.
3. Taking note of the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner vide order dated 28th November, 2024, this Court allowed time to learned counsel for the State Mr. P. Gautam to seek instructions. This Court also persuaded by the legal plea raised by the petitioner of bar of reopening assessment on grounds of limitation, stayed further proceedings pursuant to the impugned show-cause notice dated 18th October, 2024 (Annexure-5) in the meantime. What has come on record by way of counter-affidavit of the respondents No.2 and 3 are quite stark and staring on the face of the pleadings of the writ petition since the writ petitioner has completely suppressed the factum of revisional proceedings initiated by the Commissioner of Taxes under Section 70(1) of the TVAT Act in which the petitioner also appeared and participated. Vide order dated 27th October, 2022, the Revisional Authority disposed of the revision Case No.06/CH-VI/2019 directing the Superintendent of Taxes to reassess the dealer afresh.
4. The respondents have made categorical statements in reply to the averments made in the writ petition that the order of assessment was passed by the Superintendent of Taxes for the period 2009-2010 to 2013-14 on 12th December, 2014. On 12th December, 2014, the Superintendent of Taxes also passed an order of assessment in respect of the Central Sales Tax amount. Petitioner challenged the order of assessment before the Appellate Authority under Section 69 of the TVAT Act, 2004 and also the order passed under the Central Sales Tax Act. The Appellate Authority set aside the assessment order dated 12th December, 2014 vide its order dated 28th August, 2015 both under TVAT Act as well as CST Act and remanded the matter to the concerned charge for passing a speaking order. Pursuant to such direction, the Superintendent of Taxes passed a fresh order dated 5th December, 2015. On 24th September, 2019 the statutory Revisional Authority took suo-moto cognizance under Section 70(1) of the TVAT Act and the dealer was served notice regarding the revision case bearing Case No.06/CH-VI/2019. The Revisional Authority took suo-moto cognizance of the matter on the basis of audit observation by which it was stated that the dealer in his trading account for the year 2009-10 disclosed his purchase turnover of 4% taxable goods as Rs.61,03,899/- and the Assessing Authority accepted it completely. The audit party has also raised other issues in audit inspection report on the basis of which the suo-moto revisional proceedings were initiated. The dealer appeared before the revisional authority in the said revision case and submitted appearance slip and adjournment petition.
5. On 27th October, 2022, the Revisional Authority passed its final order by disposing the revision case with a direction to the Superintendent of Taxes to reassess the dealer afresh. Accordingly, notice under Section 36 of the TVAT Act was issued by the Superintendent of Taxes, Charge-VI on 18th July, 2023, 30th November, 2023, 28th Decemb
A petitioner must disclose all relevant facts when invoking writ jurisdiction; suppression of material facts can lead to dismissal of the petition.
The court ruled that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax improperly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263, as the issues had already been addressed in the original assessment, invoking the doct....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of approaching the court with clean hands and the consequences of suppression of material facts.
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.
Reopening of assessment under the Income Tax Act after four years is impermissible without failure to disclose material facts; mere change of opinion does not justify such action.
The Court should be guided by the reasons recorded for the reassessment and not by the reasons or explanation given by the Assessing Officer at a later stage in respect of the notice of reassessment.....
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.