Sarada Medical Agency v. The State of Tripura & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 s. 31(1)
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. On the other hand, Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents-State, strenuously objected the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner contending that since there is an alternative remedy of appeal available under section 69 of the TVAT Act, petitioner…
- Para 88. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) Pulak
Judgment
: Mr. Biplabendu Roy, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, G.A. HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH Order 07/12/2022 Heard Mr. Biplabendu Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents-State.
By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the Order of Assessment and Notice of Demand dated 30.03.2021 (Annexure-6) issued by the Superintendent of Taxes, Agartala, Charge-III whereby no liability of tax was fastened with the petitioner for the assessment year 2015- 2016 but a penalty of Rs.1,02,079/- was imposed on the petitioner.
Petitioner submits that the order of assessment was passed under the purported exercise of powers under section 31(1) of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (TVAT Act, for short) wherein liability of sales tax/VAT was Nil for the assessment year 2015-2016 but a penalty was imposed under section 53(2) of the TVAT Act stating that the petitioner has violated the provisions of Section 53(1) of the Act for not submitting the audited accounts within the prescribed time.
Petitioner also asserts that the penalty was imposed illegally and arbitrarily without serving any notice and also not providing any prescribed form mandated under section 53(1) of the TVAT Act. Petitioner also submits that the order of assessment is passed by the assessing authority in violation of principles of natural justice without providing the prescribed format for submission of audit report and after expiry of five years which is also barred by limitation. Aggrieved by this impugned order of assessment and notice of demand for penalty, the petitioner filed this writ petition. Hence, this case.
Mr. Biplabendu Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that though the petitioner-dealer had paid all the taxes for the assessment year 2015-16, the assessing authority had imposed penalty under section 53(2) of the TVAT Act illegally and arbitrarily without providing the prescribed form. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned order of assessment and notice of demand.
On the other hand, Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents-State, strenuously objected the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner contending that since there is an alternative remedy of appeal available under section 69 of the TVAT Act, petitioner may avail such remedy by approaching the appropriate authority. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the impugned Order of Assessment and Notice of Demand dated
30.03.2021 (Annexure-6) are set aside. Liberty is given to the respondents to follow the procedure in accordance with law and initiate a fresh proceedings.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) Pulak
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.