TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n his communication. 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. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioner is rejected and the assessment order in so far as the assessment of the tax is concerned is upheld. Demand of interest - Section 25(4) of the Act - Petitioner contended that plaintiff did not deposit the tax in view of the judgment delivered by the Court in the year 2006 and therefore, he should not be made liable to pay tax for this period - Held that:- this is not a case where a person has not paid tax on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. - Decided partly in favour of petitioner - W.P. (C) 281 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 7-10-2015 - Mr. Deepak Gupta and Mr. S.C. Das, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, Sr. Advocate. Mr. R. Datta, Advocate. For the respondents : Dr. A.K. Saraf, Sr. Advocate. Mr. D.C. Nath, Advocate. JUDGMENT The petitioner is admittedly a dealer in pea-gravel. He filed W.P. (C) No.114 of 2000 in which he claimed that pea-gravel was not an item exigible to tax either under the Tripura Sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his estimation he was to pay another sum of ₹ 10,04,335/- as tax for the intervening period and submitted that some amount had already been deducted as TDS and that he had deposited a sum of ₹ 3,00,000/- and he may be permitted to deposit balance in 7 monthly installments of ₹ 1,00,000/-. On 20th September, 2010, this request of the petitioner-assessee was accepted. 3. In the mean time, the petitioner-assessee filed Special Leave Petition against the judgment of the Division Bench before the Apex Court which was also rejected. On 29th October, 2010, the Superintendent of Taxes issued notice to the petitioner under Section 31(1) of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act asking him to produce his books of accounts for the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court or by the Division Bench merely because the petitioner had filed a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court or had filed Review Petition before this Court did not give any right to the petitioner to claim that the assessing officer should not proceed with the assessment proceeding. Either the petitioner should have applied to the High Court for stay of the proceedings but the petitioner cannot himself grant a stay order in his own favour by claiming that since he has filed Review Petition the assessment proceeding against him should be stayed. 5. It has been urged by Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner remained under the impression that since Review Petition has been filed the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e stay order is vacated or if the final judgment is set aside or modified all consequences will follow. Interest is statutorily payable and we, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner is liable to pay interest on the amount of tax assessed by the assessing officer from the date when the amount fell due till payment of the assessed amount as per the rates fixed in the T VAT Act. 7. Lastly, coming to the issue of penalty. It is urged by Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel that penalty cannot be levied in this case because the petitioner was not trying to evade the payment of tax. We have no doubt in our mind that every citizen has right to approach this Court. The petitioner had approached this Court and a Single Judge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessing officer shall calculate the amount of tax as well as the amount of interest payable up to 31st October, 2015. The petitioner shall pay 25% of the amount so assessed latest by 30th November, 2015 and the balance amount can be paid by the petitioner in 12 equal monthly installments. It is made clear that the petitioner shall be liable to pay interest at the statutory rate on the said amounts up to the date when it is paid. 9. In case, the petitioner wants to liquidate the liability earlier he can do so. In case, the petitioner fails to pay any one of the installments, the entire amount shall become due and recoverable as arrears of land revenue in accordance with law. After the petitioner has paid a sum of ₹ 20,00,000/- wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
