Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Sri Samir Ghosh Versus State of Tripura and others

2016 (6) TMI 389 - TRIPURA HIGH COURT

Assessment of tax due @ 150% - Section 25(4) of the Act - Pea-gravel - Petitioner submitted that it remained under the impression that since Review Petition has been filed the assessment proceeding should be stayed and therefore he did not appear before the assessing officer - Held that:- we are not at all in agreement with the submission of petitioner. 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 basis of some litigation or decision rendered in a case of other parties. It is the petitioner himself who appr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t as per the rates fixed in the TVAT Act.

Imposition of penalty - Section 31(5) of the Act - petitioner was not trying to evade the payment of tax - Held that:- every citizen has right to approach this Court. The petitioner had approached this Court and a Single Judge had decided the matter in his favour in the year 15.06.2007 that pea-gravel is not exigible to tax. Therefore, there was no question of the petitioner filing any returns because once this judgment had been passed in favo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

me 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. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

a-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 Writ Appeal No.59 of 2007 chal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, thereafter, on 16th September, 2010 sent a communication to the Superintendent of Taxes that according to 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ded 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 aga .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

has challenged this assessment order by filing the present writ petition in this Court. 4. In the mean time, the Review Petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 10th July, 2013. It would be pertinent to mention that after the Division Bench decided the case there was no stay order in favour of the petitioner either by the Apex 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t the petitioner remained under the impression that since Review Petition has been filed the assessment proceeding should be stayed and therefore he did not appear before the assessing officer. We are not at all in agreement with 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 a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

6. Next coming to the question of interest. It has been urged by Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel that the 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. This is not a case where a person has not paid tax on the basis of some litigation or decision rendered in a case of other parties. It is the petitioner himself who approached this Court. Once a party approaches th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 had decided the matter in his favour in the year 15.06.2007 that pea-gravel is not exigible to tax. Therefore, there was no question of the petitioner filin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version