2012 (10) TMI 493 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Sale occasions import - Taxation on Air conditioning equipments - @20% OR @10% - Period of limitation for revision of the order - reasonable period - Held that - In the absence of limitation period for revision under Section 21 of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976, it would be very difficult to come to a conclusion that in the given case the revisional jurisdiction invoked by the Revisional Authority under Section 21 of the said Act after a period of three years would be one exercised with malafide intention or the Revisional Authority should not exercise its revisional jurisdiction after the lapse of three years from the date of passing the order against which revision lies under Section 21 of the Act. Three years period cannot be said to be a very long period and therefore, in all these cases, we hold that the power was exercised within a reasonable period of time. As the petitioner strenuously contends that the point in the paragraph 6(v) of the impugned order dated 26.03.2012 was decided wrongly, the Revisional Authority is directed to take into consideration of the decisions of the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Embee Corporation 1997 (8) TMI 443 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA while interpreting the expression sale occasions import occurring in sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Act, it is not necessary that a completed sale should precede the import. Revisional Authority is directed to dispose of the Revision Case by passing a reasoned order within a period of two months.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to order of Revisional Authority under Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 after a lapse of more than three years from the date of the assessment order. Jurisdiction of Revisional Authority to decide specific points mentioned in the impugned order dated 26.03.2012. Allegation of bias against the Revisional Authority. Interpretation of statutory provisions and case laws related to the exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

Analysis:

The case involves a challenge by a company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976, against an order of the Revisional Authority dated 26.03.2012. The impugned order directed the petitioner to appear and explain why the assessment order for the years 1998-99 to 2004-05 should not be cancelled and remanded for reassessment based on specific points outlined in the order.

The petitioner contended that the Revisional Authority lacked jurisdiction to decide the mentioned points and raised concerns about bias. The court observed that the Revisional Authority had not conclusively decided the points in question. The petitioner also argued that the Revisional Authority could not exercise jurisdiction after more than three years from the original assessment order, citing relevant case law. The court analyzed the absence of a limitation period for revision under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976, and emphasized the need to consider the circumstances of each case.

Referring to the decision in a specific case, the court highlighted the importance of understanding the context of the case at hand. It directed the Revisional Authority to consider relevant apex court decisions while addressing specific points raised by the petitioner. The court instructed the Revisional Authority to provide a reasoned order within two months, considering all factual and legal arguments presented in the writ petition.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition with the mentioned observations and directions, emphasizing the need for a thorough consideration of all aspects before reaching a decision in the Revision Case.