2014 (2) TMI 1145 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Action u/s 29 - Levy of tax with interest under TST Act - Held that - There is no direction by the Commissioner of Taxes to the Superintendent of Taxes to take action under section 29 of the TST Act. It has only given liberty to the assessing officer to take such action. We may make it clear that such action can be taken only if permissible under law and in accordance with the limitation prescribed under law. - Section clearly debars the revisional authority from passing an order which is prejudicial to the petitioner, but this is not an order prejudicial to the petitioner inasmuch as only liberty has been granted to the Superintendent of Taxes to take action. It is for the Superintendent of Taxes to decide whether action should be taken under section 29 or not. It also appears to us that this order was passed because of the offer made by the petitioner himself that he is willing to compound the offence under section 32(1)(b) of the TST Act. Compounding can only take place if an offence is made out and when the petitioner himself stated that he wanted to compound the matter, he was in a sense agreeing that action can be taken under section 29. Therefore, this part of the order can not be said to be prejudicial to the rights of the petitioner. - Decided against Assessee.

Issues:
1. Challenge against the Commissioner of Taxes' order dated March 24, 2004.
2. Applicability of section 13A of the Tripura Sales Tax Act.
3. Direction to Superintendent of Taxes under section 29.
4. Prejudicial impact of the order under section 21(2) of the TST Act.
5. Liberty granted for compounding the offence under section 32(1)(b) of the TST Act.
6. Dismissal of the writ petition and clarification on the Superintendent of Taxes' decision under section 29.
7. Petitioner's right to approach the Commissioner of Taxes for a refund.
8. Disposal of the writ petition without costs.

Analysis:

1. The writ petition challenges the Commissioner of Taxes' order dated March 24, 2004. The Commissioner found section 13A of the TST Act not applicable to the petitioner, setting aside the tax and penalty but holding the petitioner liable to pay Rs. 922 with interest, which is not contested. The petitioner's grievance regarding the direction to the Superintendent of Taxes under section 29 is clarified by the court, emphasizing that no specific direction was given, only granting liberty for action within legal limits and time constraints.

2. The court addresses the petitioner's argument of prejudice under section 21(2) of the TST Act, emphasizing that the order does not adversely affect the petitioner as it merely allows the Superintendent of Taxes to consider action under section 29. The court notes the petitioner's willingness to compound the offence under section 32(1)(b) of the TST Act, which implies an agreement for potential action under section 29, thus not prejudicing the petitioner's rights.

3. The writ petition is ultimately dismissed, with the court reiterating that the decision on action under section 29 rests with the Superintendent of Taxes, emphasizing compliance with legal limitations. The court clarifies that no stay was issued on prosecution or the impugned order, necessitating adherence to the statutory limitation for offences under section 29.

4. The petitioner is granted the liberty to seek a refund of 50% of the amount deposited, provided there is no pending demand against them. The court disposes of the writ petition without imposing any costs, concluding the judgment without financial penalties on either party.

← Previous Next →