|
Advanced Search Options
VAT and Sales Tax - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 724 Records
-
2013 (12) TMI 629 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Applicability of Explanation 3 to Section 2(r) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 - Revenue was of the view that the separate value given to immovable and movable assets, intangible and tangible assets Held that:- The intention of the parties was to sell Thoraipakkam and Ranipet Units, the authorities including the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal committed serious error in holding that there was separate sale of immovable assets and movable assets by referring to the balance sheets and profit and loss account produced before the authorities - when the parties to the agreement had agreed upon the value for the sale of two units - the assessee had not agreed to piecemeal sale of business, on the mere fact that the purchaser had given the value of the immovable assets and movable assets separately by itself would not defeat the claim of the assessee for exemption from taxation - The sale of the entire stock-in-trade as such could not be treated as sale of business in entirety - the assessee continued to be in business and retained business in those units, the question of exclusion of turnover relating to stock in trade does not arise.
The bifurcation of the price would not in any manner go against the intention of the parties viz., sale of entire unit at Thoraipakkam and Ranipet in favour of the purchaser and going by the various terms of the agreement - there was no justifiable ground to accept that the sale consideration would form part of the turnover Following Deputy Commissioner (C.T)., Coimbatore Vs. K.Behanan Thomas [1976 (4) TMI 202 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] - when there is transfer of business as a whole even if it be an unit, were two independent units, Explanation 3 to Section 2(r) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 cannot be attracted to the assessee - The demand as well as the penalty levied on the assessee set aside Decided in favour of Assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 567 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Maintainability of Writ Petition Alternate redressal available Duty liability on labour charges and consumables used in the job work of printing - Held that:- The petitioner has filed invoice wise statement for labour receipt and furnished delivery challan to show that paper or board supplied by the customer for doing labour works - when certain charges are not leviable, it is for the authority concerned to assess the tax in accordance with law - While doing so, if there is any discrepancy in the order, it is incumbent on the petitioner to go before the appellate forum for redressal of such grievance and for consideration of such question which arises for consideration - Without doing so, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India contending that there is a levy without jurisdiction.
When there is an effective, efficacious alternate remedy available to the parties, it is for them to exhaust such a remedy in accordance with law and they can agitate every merit of the case before such a forum - the petitioner's approach of without exhausting the appellate remedy, would definitely deprive the statutory right conferred on the parties - the claim of the petitioner cannot be gone into by in the writ petition when there is an effective statutory remedy Decided against Petitioner.
-
2013 (12) TMI 502 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Constitutional validity of the entry tax - Violating of Article 301 of the Constitution of India - Re-assessment or exemption - Exemption notification dated 7.7.2004 - Held that:- It is always open to the petitioners to satisfy the assessing authority by any cogent evidence other than the certificate of the assessing officer of the place where the business place of the principal is situate or From-F of the Central Sales Tax Act that the goods imported in the State of U.P. were brought in only for job work and that the finished goods were returned to the principals outside the State of U.P - It will be open to the petitioners to satisfy the assessing authority, if the assessments are pending in reassessments proceedings, or before the appellate authority that the petitioners had only carried out the job work on the imported goods and returned goods imported in the State, to its principals outside the State - Following decision of M/s. A.C.P.L. Jewels Private Ltd. vs. Union of India and others [2009 (12) TMI 898 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of Petitioner.
-
2013 (12) TMI 501 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Transaction treated as outright sale Supply and laying mosaic to the prescription of the purchaser Held that:- The assessee has not used in the execution of any works contract, the goods which were purchased by him in the same form - the question of granting exemption under Section 3B(2)(b) of the TNGST Act, does not arise - There was no justifiable grounds to accept the plea of the assessee that they are entitled for exemption under Section 3B(2)(b) of the TNGST Act - the contract is one for manufacture of mosaic tiles and laying of tiles in the business place of the dealer, which is an inevitable works contract, the Assessing Officer in his point of assessment, proposed adoption of 50% for manufacturing process and the other 50% for laying and polishing, there being no separate details for payment of such wages towards manufacturing of mosaic tiles and for laying and polishing in the sites of his customers.
Imposition of Penalty u/s 12(5)(iii) of the TNGST Act - Relying upon Apparels and Handloom Exporters Association and Ors., vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. [2001 (9) TMI 1114 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] - The Assessing Officer to redo the deduction particularly with reference to Labour Charges alone adopting 30% as relatable to labour charges liable to be deducted in the books of accounts - Apart from this, the question of penalty levied on the assessee also needs to be reassessed - the Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the levy of penalty under Section 12(5)(iii) of the TNGST Act, the Tribunal reduced the levy of penalty at 50% as against the 150% - Decided partly in favour of Petitioner.
-
2013 (12) TMI 443 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Right of assessee to claim fresh relief even if no appeal / revision filed against the order of lower authority - Chargeability of tax - HELD THAT:- As to the right of the assessee to question the very applicability of Section 3A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act to the transaction of the assessee in a revision filed by the State, even in the absence of any revision filed by the assessee, we agree with the submission of the learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee.
In the background of the well settled principles laid down as regards the jurisdiction of this Court, that the ultimate endeavour in recognising such a right in the opposite party in a tax litigation being one of arriving at appropriate and correct tax adjustment, we hold that the assessee is entitled to make its submission on the very applicability of Section 3A of the Act to the facts of this case.
Liability to sales tax - Exemption under Section 3A(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act - Transfer of possession accompanied by transfer of right to use - Leasing of ship - Held that:- there was no transfer of right to use to have an effective control of the Vessel by the charterer under the time charter so as to attract the charge under the provisions of Section 3A of the Act - mere fact that the agreement had been entered into and that the assessee had been paid the hire charges, does not, per se, bring the transaction within the scope of Section 3A of the Act - amendment to the Central Sales Tax Act in including the transfer of right to use any goods as deemed sale was brought in under the definition of "sale" in Section 2(g) under the Finance Act (No.20 of) 2002, effective from 11th May 2002. In any event, even otherwise, the enlarged definition of "sale", available on and from 11th May 2002, can have no relevance to the transaction of time charter for considering the same even by way of a deduction under Section 3A(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act.
Question of considering a deduction under Section 3A(2)(a) of the Act does not arise and it would be in excess of what is contemplated under Section 3A of the Act, or for that matter, beyond the legislative power of a State - This is the reproduction of Section 4 of the Central Sales Tax Act. Thus the location of goods at the time of sale determines the jurisdiction of that State to levy sales tax under the State Sales Tax Act. Thus in the case of ascertained goods, the place where the goods are at the time of contract, is the State which has the jurisdiction to assess the transaction. In the case of unascertained or future goods, the State where appropriation takes place, would be the competent State to impose tax.
As on the date of sale relating to the assessment years 1993-94 to 1997-98, the agreement was for named ships which were nowhere near the jurisdiction of the State of Tamil Nadu, to levy sales tax on the transactions under the provisions of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, treating them as local sales. The mere fact that the contract is entered into in Tamil Nadu, or for that matter the assessee has sought for registration under the State Act, by itself, would not confer jurisdiction on the State to impose tax on the sale of the assets located outside the territorial application of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act.
Except for contending that the sale of ships is assessable under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, no material is placed before us to challenge the findings of the Tribunal on the sale of specifically named ships. In the circumstances, we agree with the assessee that having regard to the fact that the agreement is with reference to the sale of specific Vessel by name, we have no hesitation in holding that all these being specific goods located outside the State of Tamil Nadu, the transactions are not chargeable to tax - In the light of the above, cancelling the assessment, the question of levy of penalty does not arise - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (12) TMI 442 - SUPREME COURT
Admissibility of appeal - Appellate authority returned the Memorandum of Appeal on the ground that Section 51 uses the term "entertain" - Single Judge directed the assessee to comply with all the requirements as intimated by the appellate authority in the Return Memo - Adjustment of amount due as per section 51 - Held that:- for a condition to entertain an appeal does not mean that the Memorandum of Appeal shall be returned because of such non- compliance pertaining to pre-deposit. The only consequences that the appeal shall not be entertained which means the appeal shall not be considered on merits and eventually has to be dismissed on that ground.
Appellant shall deposit the amount as required by the Deputy Commissioner-I, Commercial Taxes vide order dated 6.1.2011 by 30th September, 2013 whereafter the appeal shall be heard and disposed of on merits. As far as the adjustment/refund is concerned, it is open to the appellant to initiate any independent proceeding. The conclusion of the Division Bench with regard to the factum that there has been proper adjustment by the Department in respect of the claim made by the assessee is set aside - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 386 - SUPREME COURT
Demand of tax - Rectification application under Section 66 - Admissibility of appeal - Division Bench while modifying the order of the learned Single Judge directed that unless the modified conditions are complied with the appeal would not be disposed of - Held that:- condition imposed by the Division Bench is against the language of the provision relating to appeal. If the conditions imposed by the Division are not complied with, the appeal would have meet its own fate, but the High Court could not have directed in law that unless the conditions are satisfied, the appeal shall not be heard. It is not permissible - time for payment and furnishing security has expired, we extend the time till end of December, 2013 to deposit the amount as directed by the Division Bench and furnish the security as directed therein within the said period - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 385 - SUPREME COURT
Rebate of tax to cement manufacturing units using flyash as raw material - Violation of Art. 301 and 304(a) of the Constitution of India - Restriction on trade and commerce - Validity of Notification No. T.T.-2-592/XI-9(226)94- U.P. Act-15-48 - Whether doctrine of severability will apply and therefore if Condition No. 1 in the notification violates articles 301 and 304(a) of the Constitution of India; should the notification be struck down in its entirety or merely the impinging condition in the notification - Held that:- State Government has issued notification dated 27.02.1998 reducing the tax liability of the dealers by twenty five per cent on goods having fly-ash contents between 10 to 30 per cent weight and has reduced the tax liability of the dealer by fifty per cent on goods having fly-ash contents exceeding thirty per cent by weight - The immediate effect of such rebate or tax cut decreases the real revenue of the Government and an increase in the real income of those whose tax rate has been lowered.
Article 304(a) of the Constitution is an exception to article 301 of the Constitution of India. Article 304(a) does not prevent levy of tax on goods; what is prohibited is such levy of tax on goods as would result in discrimination between goods imported from other States and similar goods manufactured or produced within the State. The object is to prevent imported goods being discriminated against by imposing a higher tax thereon than on local goods. What article 304(a) demands is that the rate of taxation on local as well as imported goods must be the same. This is designed to discourage States from creating State barriers or fiscal barriers at the boundaries.
Article 304(a) ensures only equal rate of tax for incoming goods. So if such goods are taxed at a higher rate or where they are taxed at any rate when indigenous goods enjoy concessional rate of tax, article 304(a) is attracted. They are simple cases of hostile discrimination - The concept of rebate of tax in the instant case is akin to concessional/ reduced rate of tax. Rebate is though ex-hypothesi in the nature of subsidy and other incentives given by the Government but conceptually rebate of tax and incentives are different and it needs to be explained in reference to the purpose and nature of such rebate of tax introduced by the legislature. The legislation in respect of a rebate has taken different forms, one of them is a partial rebate in the tax, where the deduction is given partially on the gross amount and the other is the power reserved for the Government to permit rebate in respect of any goods to the full amount of the tax levied at any point in the series of sales of such goods. A dealer who is entitled to a rebate under any notification will collect the tax from the consumers at the point of purchase and then have to pay the full amount of sales tax due on his turnover in that quarter; and claim rebate in terms of the notification in accordance with the provision in the rules. However, the claim for rebate need not necessarily be handed back to the payer after he has paid the stipulated sum, it can also be paid in advance of payment. It is nothing but a remission or a payment back or it is sometimes spoken of as a discount or a drawback.
It is the discretion of the State Government, through its legislature, to grant rebate to the full amount of sales tax, unless its power of taxation is limited by Constitutional provisions. In the facts of the present case, the legislature authorizes the State Government under Section 5 of the Act to issue notification in the public interest to grant rebate up to the full amount of the tax levied on any specific point in the series of sales/ purchase of such goods. Such rebate is only extended to the districts in State of Uttar Pradesh. The Government of Uttar Pradesh has the power to refund or discount to the full amount of rate of sales tax levied on a dealer, provided the power to discount does not overall has effects of a weapon of taxation that would discriminate between the goods imported and manufactured in Uttar Pradesh as laid down in article 304(a) of the Constitution.
If the grant of rebate of tax by the State Government under Section 5 of the Act is to the full amount of tax levied, then for the dealers manufacturing cement using fly-ash outside the State of Uttar Pradesh but selling it in Uttar Pradesh, though the State Government contends that the rate of tax is same for the dealers inside Uttar Pradesh and outside Uttar Pradesh, but the overall effect is that there is no tax levied on the net turnover after deductions being made from the gross turnover but, on the other hand, the dealers manufacturing or producing cement using fly-ash outside Uttar Pradesh are taxed at the rate of 12.5%. Therefore, it can be said that the rebate of tax is in the nature of exemption and the instant case can be decided on the basis of catena of decisions of this Court where blanket exemption without reasons are said to be discriminatory and violating article 304(a) of the Constitution of India.
Condition No. 1 is discriminatory and violates article 304(a) of the Constitution of India and therefore needs to be severed from the rest of the notification which can operate independently without altering the purpose and the object of the notification - rebate of tax granted by the State Government to cement manufacturing units using flyash as raw material in a unit established in the districts of State of Uttar Pradesh alone is violative of the provisions contained in articles 301 and 304(a) of the Constitution of India - Decided against Appellant.
-
2013 (12) TMI 332 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Modification in eligibility certificate u/s 4-A of U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 - Reduction in the period of Exemption of Tax on sale Held that:- The certificate issued to the assessee is referable to one which has been issued in accordance with Clause (d) of Sub-Section 2 of Section 4-A of the Act and not by the High Court, meaning thereby that the Commissioner had the authority to amend and cancel the same - The discontinuance of business by the assessee was not directly and substantially involved in the writ petition, the principles of constructive res-judicata would not come into play so as to debar the authorities from exercising the statutory power under Section 4-A (3) of the Act to amend the eligibility certificate in the event they find that the assessee had discontinued its business for a continuous period of six months at a stretch - There was discontinuance of business by the assessee for a continuous period of six month Thus, the Commissioner committed no error of law in limiting the exemption from tax granted to the assessee Decided against Petitioner.
-
2013 (12) TMI 331 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Waiver of pre deposit of tax, interest and penalty - Set off of VAT paid on purchase of gold for subsequent yeras - Set off available when sales is less than 50% of the total receipts - Interpretation of Rule 53(6)(b) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 - Held that:- The orders impugned in the petition viz. order dated 29 July 2013 of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal and order dated 3 September 2013 have been passed on application to stay the order of the Assessing Officer pending disposal of the appeal by the first appellate authority. Therefore the merits of the controversy and the interpretation of Rule 53(6)(b) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Rules 2005 would be gone into in depth by the Appellate Authority at the final hearing. However, as the issue involved is one of interpretation of law, no deposit of amounts attributable to penalty should be insisted upon for the purpose of stay - Order modified - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 273 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Alternate remedy available or not Held that:- The Court has recognized some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy, i.e., where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice - Following Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1983 (4) TMI 49 - SUPREME Court] - the party in the ordinary course should approach the appellate authority provided under the Act.
High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field Thus, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation Decided against Petitioner.
-
2013 (12) TMI 272 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Mode of Service of orders and notices Held that:- All the notices were sent to the correct address of the petitioner Following C.C.Alavi Haji v Palapetty Muhammed [2007 (5) TMI 335 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - when a notice is sent by registered post and is returned with a postal endorsement 'refused' or 'not available in the house', it is presumed that the notice is served - Unless and until the contrary is proved by the addressee, service of notice is deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of business - when a notice is sent by registered post and is returned with a postal endorsement "refused" or "not available in the house" or "house locked" or "shop closed" or "addressee not in station", due service has to be presumed - The first respondent strictly adhered to the procedure contemplated under Rule 64 of the VAT Rules before passing the assessment order.
There was no substance in the contention of the petitioner that the assessment order is in violation of the principles of natural justice - the petitioner cannot straightaway invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without resorting to the efficacious alternative remedy available to him under Section 31 of the VAT Act Decided against Petitioner.
-
2013 (12) TMI 214 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Penalty u/s 57 (15) Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2002 goods detained being not supported by the documents - Held that:- After the order imposing the penalty against the petitioner was passed - The petitioner had opted to pay a lump sum amount as per Section 57 (17) of the Act and paid the penalty amount - once the petitioner had paid the penalty imposed upon it by the Check Post Officer, it was incumbent upon the Check Post Officer to have exercised its power under Section 57 (11) of the Act to release the goods seized by it in favour of the transporter.
Dues of tax against the seller - Before expiry of period of Notice of Demand issued to seller, as required under Section 27 of the Act read with Rule 41 of the MP VAT Rules, 2006 the goods were already sold by M/s. Shri Hari Enterprises to M/s. Mahajan Traders and its ownership no more remained with M/s. Shri Hari Enterprises - the seller having already received the price of the goods and having handed over the goods to the petitioner / transporter for being delivered to the buyer, the goods could not have been detained by the Check Post Officer for realization of the tax assessed by it against the seller - The amount of tax against M/s. Shri Hari Enterprises was crystalized and became payable after the sale of the goods was already complete - The action of the revenue in not releasing the goods in favour of the petitioner / transporter is violative of Section 57 (11) of the Act Revenue is directed to release the tankers with goods Decided in favour of Petitioner.
-
2013 (12) TMI 213 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Interest u/s 24 (4) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act - Rejection of issuance of refund vouchers Held that:- The Certificate was issued with respect to the application made for settlement of interest - The refund was ordered on 03.10.2008 even before the Ordinance was published - The Certificate would cover only the claims relating to any amount quoted in order determining the amount to be paid under the Scheme - The bar emphasised under Sections 9 and 10 shall be applicable only if the dealer wants to claim refund of the amount paid under the Samadhan Scheme and not the refund which was ordered even before the application for Settlement - there was no request for interest earlier, the single Judge had rightly disallowed the claim of interest granting liberty to the respondent and directed the appellants to issue refund voucher - there is no infirmity in the order passed by the single Judge decided against Petitioner.
-
2013 (12) TMI 160 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Validity of Assessment order Petitioner contended that notice not served - Breach of principles of natural justice Held that:- The petitions involve seriously disputed questions of fact as well as questions of law on merits of the controversy - it would be appropriate for the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of filing appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals) - in case the petitioner files appeals before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals) , the appellate authority shall entertain the appeals and examine all contentions without raising the plea of limitation as far as the filing of appeals is concerned Decided in favour of Petitioner.
-
2013 (12) TMI 159 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Validity of Show cause notice Re-assessment of escaped assessment - Denial of adjustment of sales tax on purchase of paddy Held that:- S/s Gaya Deen Kailash Chand vs. State of UP & others [2013 (3) TMI 425 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] - If the grounds are relevant and have a nexus with the formation of opinion regarding escaped assessment, the assessing authority would be clothed with jurisdiction to take action under the section - Whether the grounds are adequate or not is not a matter which would be gone into by the High Court or Supreme Court, for the sufficiency of the grounds which induced the assessing authority to act is not a justiciable issue - What can be challenged is the existence of the belief but not the sufficiency or reasons for the belief - At the same time, the belief must be held in good faith and should not be a mere pretence.
M/s Aryaverth Chawal Udyog & Others Versus State of U.P. & Others [2008 (5) TMI 602 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] - Initiation of re-assessment cannot be held to be invalid - There was no good ground to entertain the challenge inasmuch as the circular is only by way of clarification and does not take away the jurisdiction of assessing authority of re-assessment - No writ can be issued to prohibit a person to correct a legal mistake - A writ jurisdiction is meant for doing justice and not to perpetuate injustice or technicalities - the show cause notices proposing re-assessment of the escaped turnover issued under Section 21 (2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act are valid Decided against Petitioner.
-
2013 (12) TMI 105 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Stay application - Recovery of tax - Held that:- Addl. Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Tax, Ghaziabad-respondent no.1 to decide the stay application in the pending appeals for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 within a period of three working days from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 50 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sale tax liability - Purchase of used/second hand arms from licensees - Whether the assessee can be recognized as a manufacturer in respect of used/second hand arms purchased by him from the licensees - Held that:- The assessee is said to have supplied the list of the persons/licensees from whom the old arms were purchased along with their complete details. The supply of said list is not disputed and none of the authorities have found or recorded finding that the assessee had not purchased old arms from the said persons. The said persons are mere licensees of arms and there is no finding that any of them ever indulged in sale and purchase of arms or carried the said business. In absence of any such finding the persons or licensees from whom the assessee purchased old arms cannot be recognized as dealer - The assessee is also not the person or the dealer who made the first sale of goods in the State after their manufacture, inasmuch, he makes the sale after purchase of the old arms from licensees who may be first or second purchasers after the goods were manufactured. The sale to the licensees of U.P. from whom the assessee had purchased old arms would actually be the first sale and not the one made by the assessee - Accordingly, the assessee cannot be treated to be a manufacturer in respect of of the old arms purchased by him from the licensees within the meaning of Section 2(ee) of the Act - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1678 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Seizure of goods - the quality of the goods ie. Supari which were in transit were better than the quality disclosed in the accompanying documents - purchasing dealer was not a registered dealer - Held that: - The seizure of the goods on the ground that they were of better quality is not a ground for seizure of the goods under the Act and the authorities are not even competent to adjudge the quality of the goods. The seizing authority has no expertise to adjudge the quality of the goods. Therefore, seizure for the reason that the Supari which was being carried was of a superior quality is not tenable in law.
The goods have also been seized for the reason that the purchasing dealer of Bihar was not registered - Held that: - genuineness of the consignor and consignee and their registration under the taxing statute are not relevant for the purposes of seizing the goods, the authorities could not have seized the goods on the above score also.
Revision allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1659 - TRIPURA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 93) 1 SCC 364 and by this Court in Biplab Kr. Ghosh Vs. Union of India, WP(C) 73 OF 2013 . We further direct that the petitioner should cooperate with the Assessing Officer and the assessment should be completed latest by 28th February, 2014. In case any amount is found refundable to the petitioner the same shall be refunded alongwith interest as payable under the provisions of the Tripura Value Added Tax on or before 30th April, 2013. We may also make it clear that we expect both the petitioner and the Assessing Officer to obey this order in letter and spirit and work in cooperation with each other and in case we find that either the petitioner or the Assessing Officer is trying to delay the matter we shall be compelled to take serious action against the erring party. o p /o p The petitioner is directed to appear before the Assessing Authority alongwith a copy of this judgment on 10th December, 2013. o p /o p The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. o p /o p
........
|
