TMI Blog2005 (5) TMI 626X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1976 ) vide registration certificate No. SDR/ST/03210/76 and deals its business in agri-pump sets and its parts, accessories, equipment, tools, machinery parts and accessories, and electrical goods which are taxable at different rates under the Act of 1976. According to the petitionerdealer, he had sold out the taxable items and had shown its turnover for different years, namely, for the assessment years 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89, and had deposited sales tax on the taxable turnover at different rates after taking benefits of form C issued to him for different years. But after examining the books of account for different years, the assessing officer, i.e., the Superintendent of Taxes, Charge-III, Agartala vide his order dated March 31, 1995 has passed the assessment orders under section 9(3) of the Act of 1976 enhancing the taxable total turnover for the assessment years 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89 and creating extra demand of sales tax and interest payable thereon for these three consecutive years on the ground that the turnover returned does not tally with the sales shown in the ledger account by the petitioner. Thereafter, an application under section 21(2) of the Act of 1976 h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . On the other hand, Sri U. B. Saha, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, submits that initially, the petitioner was aggrieved by the assessment order dated March 31, 1995 passed in respect of three consecutive assessment years for which he could have approached the appellate authority by way of filing appeal under section 20 of the Act of 1976 whereupon the appellate authority under section 20(4)(a) of the Act of 1976 might have applied his mind and confirmed, reduced, enhanced or annulled the assessment or in respect of section 20(4)(b) could have set aside the assessment order and relegated the matter for a fresh assessment after making such enquiry as may be ordered. However, in spite of available remedy under section 20 of the Act of 1976, the petitioner was wrongly advised to prefer revision under section 21(2) of the Act of 1976 before the Commissioner to examine the assessment order in exercise of its revisional power which the appellate authority could have done in exercise of its appellate power under section 20. Against the order under section 20 passed by the appellate authority or an order under section 20(1) passed by the Commissioner, the same c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3; [1996] 3 GLT 661 and has drawn my attention to paras 14 and 15 of the said judgment which are reproduced below: 14. At this stage, it shall be relevant to point out that the connected appeals from the assessment order of July 12, 1995 are not yet decided by the appellate authority, i.e., the third respondent, till today. I am of the view that the writ petitioner should exhaust the appellate forum and if the petitioner succeeds in the appeals, the petitioner shall get all the benefits. 15. According to Shri U.B. Saha, learned counsel for the respondents, the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 20 as well as the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 21 of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 is still valid and the same has statutory force of law in view of the stay order passed by the apex court as discussed above. I am in full agreement with this contention of Shri U.B. Saha. Another contention has been made by Shri U.B. Saha, learned counsel for the respondents, that relying upon a Madras High Court decision in a case between State of Tamil Nadu v. E.P. Nawab Marakkadai reported in [1996] 100 STC 1, in which the Madras High Court upheld the statutory provisions of law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for its decision. They are: '(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the revised assessment enhancing the taxable turnover under the State law by Rs. 2,50,000 and the taxable turnover under the Central law by Rs. 1,00,000 on the basis of the undisputed escape in the amount of Rs. 31,171.28 by adopting the said amount of escaped turnover as the measure for determining the quantum of enhancement for the whole year was illegal, unjustified or excessive? (2) Whether a best judgment assessment could at all be made under section 19(1) of the Act or whether revision of the assessment should be confined to the quantum of proved or admitted escaped turnover? (3) If the answer to the previous question is that the revision in the assessment should be confined only to the quantum of proved or admitted escaped turnover, was the penalty of Rs. 2,000 imposed on the footing of the revision of the assessment for the whole year legal and justified? and (4) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the imposition of a penalty under section 19(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, read with section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act was not l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
