Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ, BISWAJIT PALIT
Sanrak Rubber – Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura – Respondent
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
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.....
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
