9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court which then exercised jurisdiction over the State of Tripura delivered a judgment on 15.06.2007 holding as follows:- "That, in view of the above discussions and observations and relying on the ratio of the decisions mentioned above, it is held that the item „pea-gravel‟ is taxable under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 w.e.f. 28.02.2000 onwards but not taxable under the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004." 2. The learned Single Judge held that though pea-gravel was taxable under the Tripura Sales Tax Act but after 2004 when the Tripura Value Added Tax came into force the said item was not taxable. The State filed an appeal against this judgment which was numbered as Writ Appeal No.79 of 2007. The petitioner also filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessee responded vide letter dated 18.11.2010 and stated that he had filed an appeal against the judgment of the Division Bench before the Apex Court and the matter is subjudice. Thereafter, another notice was issued to him on 12th May, 2011. This time the stand of the assessee was that he had filed Review Petition after dismissal of the SLP before the Division Bench which was still pending. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued to the assessee on 23rd June, 2011 wherein the calculations were made and again the stand of the assessee was that after filing Review Petition the matter is subjudice and the assessing officer should not finalize the assessment. The assessing officer again issued show cause notice but finally, on 30th June ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this submission. When there was no stay order by any higher authority, it was the duty of the assessee to have appeared before the assessment officer. After the Division Bench delivered its Judgment on 9th September, 2010, the petitioner knew that there was a judgment against him which he very candidly admitted in his communication dated 16th September, 2010. Therefore, he was duty bound to appear before the assessing officer with all his accounts. If he has not done so it is at his own peril and now he cannot turn around and say that he should be granted another opportunity to place his accounts before the assessing officer. We, therefore, reject this prayer of the petitioner and uphold the assessment order in so far as the assessment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the petitioner filing any returns because once this judgment had been passed in favour of the petitioner the petitioner was justified in not submitting returns because no returns are required to be submitted in respect of an item which is not exigiible to tax. Furthermore, penalty under Section 31(5) can only be imposed if the Commissioner is satisfied that the dealer in order to evade or avoid payment of tax has not filed the returns within the prescribed period. As held by us above this is not a case of the dealer avoiding to file returns on this ground. Therefore, for the same reasons penalty under Section 25(4) can also not be imposed because the petitioner had sufficient cause not to file a return during that period. 8. We, therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
