HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA WP(C) No.726 of 2024 Sri Haripada Ray, S/o Lt. Manoranjan Ray, R/o Ramnagar Road No.9, P.O.: Ramnagar, P.S.: West Agartala, Dist: West Tripura, PIN: 799002, Aged about 51 years.

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

1. The State of Tripura, represented by it‟s Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Tripura, P.O.: Secretariat, P.S.: New Capital Complex, Dist: West Tripura, PIN: 799010.

2. The Commissioner of Taxes, Govt. of Tripura, P.N. Complex, Gurkhabasti, P.O.: Kunjaban, P.S.: NCC, District: West Tripura, PIN:799006.

3. The Superintendent of Taxes, charge IV, P.O.: Agartala, P.S.:

West Agartala, Dist: West Tripura, PIN: 799001.

----Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arijit Bhaumik, Adv.

Ms. Ishpa Chakma, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saktimoy Chakraborty, Adv. General Mr. Pradyumna Gautam, Sr. GA Mrs. Pinki Chakraborty, Adv.

Date of hearing : 24.07.2025 Date of delivery of Judgment & Order : 06.08.2025 Whether fit for reporting : YES HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT Judgment & Order Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. Arijit Bhaumik appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Learned Advocate General, Mr. Saktimoy Chakraborty assisted by Learned Senior GA, Mr. Pradyumna Gautam and Learned Counsel, Mrs. Pinki Chakraborty appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The crux question in the present writ petition is to decide whether this Court can exercise writ jurisdiction where disciplinary proceeding is contemplated by issuing show-cause notice?

3. Taking part in the hearing, Learned Counsel, Mr. Bhaumik appearing on behalf of the petitioner has first of all drawn the attention of this Court referring Annexure-13 to the writ petition i.e. the memo dated 07.09.2024 issued by the Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Tripura (Disciplinary Authority) wherein it was informed that the disciplinary authority intended to conduct an inquiry against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 enclosing statement of articles of charge against the petitioner and submitted that on perusal of articles of charge it can be found that no separate articles of charge was formulated/framed by the disciplinary authority against the petitioner excepting a detailed canvass of the allegation set forth by the prosecution-State. In the articles of charge framed against the petitioner it is specifically mentioned that:

“whereas, the alleged distortion of public records by the Superintendent of Taxes, Charge-IV, Agartala by way of overwriting „36‟ on „31‟ in the assessment order dated 28.03.2015 for the year 2006-07 had taken place during processing of the refund application on 10.01.2023;

3.1. It was further submitted that by order/memo dated 26.07.2024 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) the petitioner was placed under suspension. Learned Counsel further submitted that on 22.08.2012 one assessment order was passed by Mr. P. Roy, the then Superintendent of Taxes Charge-IV, Agartala, against the dealer M/s M.P. Khaitan (contractor) quoting the provision of Section 31(4) of the TVAT Act, 2004 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition). Challenging the said assessment order, the dealer M/s M.P. Khaitan preferred revision petition after filing statutory deposit before the Commissioner of Taxes. The Commissioner of Taxes being the revisional authority vide order dated 19.02.2014 in connection with revision case No.01 to 06/CH-IV/2013/1473-75(Annexure-5 to the writ petition) remanded the matter back to the Superintendent of Taxes, Charge-IV setting aside the assessment orders for the year 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 dated 22.08.2012 with a further direction to complete the reassessment within 30.04.2014.

3.2. Thereafter, another assessment order was passed on 28.03.2015 under Rule 21(3) of The Tripura Value Added Tax Rules (for short, TVAT Rules) by Mr. M. Sengupta, another Superintendent of Taxes, Charge-IV, Agartala in which assessment was made under Section 36 of the TVAT Act, 2004. In the said assessment order Se