2020 (1) TMI 888 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Requirement with the pre-deposit - Validity of assessment order - sub-section (2) of Section 70 of the VAT Act - HELD THAT - Section 70 of the VAT Act pertains to the revisional powers of the Commissioner. Under sub-section (1) of Section 70 the Commissioner has the power to call for and examine the record of any proceedings under the Act and take it as a revision if he finds that the order is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Under sub-section (2) of Section 70 an aggrieved assessee would likewise urge the Commissioner to exercise his revisional powers against any order passed by person subordinate to the Commissioner. Under proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 70, no petition for revision by a dealer or a transporter would be admitted by the Commissioner unless at least 50% of the amount of tax assessed, or the penalty levied as the case may be has been paid by the dealer or the transporter - In the present case, the petitioner has already deposited the entire penalty amount which though not equivalent to 50% of the total amount of tax and penalty, the difference is not considerable. The Commissioner shall decide the revision petition of the petitioner on merits without insisting on any further pre-deposit - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 70 of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 regarding the requirement of pre-deposit for filing a revision petition.

Detailed Analysis:
The petitioner, an assessee, challenged a communication demanding the payment of a tax amount with penalties. The petitioner had already deposited the penalty amount but was required to pay the entire tax with penalties. The Advocate General argued that as per the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 70 of the VAT Act, an assessee must deposit 50% of the disputed tax and penalty demands for the revision petition to be maintainable. The Advocate General cited a previous judgment that took a contrary view and requested reconsideration.

The proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 70 of the VAT Act states that a revision petition by a dealer or transporter cannot be admitted unless at least 50% of the tax assessed or penalty levied has been paid. A previous judgment had interpreted this provision differently, leading to the argument for reconsideration. In the present case, the petitioner had paid the entire penalty amount, which did not amount to 50% of the total tax and penalty. However, considering the small difference in the amount and the specific circumstances, the court decided not to reopen the issue decided in the previous judgment.

The court directed that the Commissioner should decide the revision petition on its merits without requiring any further pre-deposit from the petitioner. It was also ordered that no further recoveries should be made against the petitioner based on the assessment order during the pendency of the revision petition. The Commissioner was instructed to dispose of the revision petition within three months, and the petitioner was asked to cooperate for an early hearing and disposal of the petition.

In conclusion, the petition was disposed of, and any pending applications were also considered disposed of. The court's decision clarified the interpretation of the pre-deposit requirement for filing a revision petition under Section 70 of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004, and provided specific directions for the handling of the petitioner's case.