9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (6) TMI 533X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D), as well as, for setting aside and/or striking down the provision of section 3A of the Tripura Sales Tax Act as amended by the Fourth Amendment Act of the said Act in so far as retrospectivity provision is concerned. Oral 2.. The short question that really falls for examination is whether the petitioner s firm is liable to pay sales tax with retrospective effect as per the Tripura Sales Tax (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1987 wherein in section 1, sub-section (3) it has been specifically mentioned that clause (i) of section 3 and section 4 shall be deemed to have come into force on the 12th day of July, 1984 and all other provisions shall come into force at once. 3.. The petitioner s case, in brief, is that the petitioner s firm was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act. 6.. In the present case for the assessment year 1392 B.S. (i.e., assessment year 1985) the petitioner s firm as usual submitted returns for all the 4 (four) quarters, but though under the law the assessing authority is to complete the assessment soon after the assessment year is over, the assessing authority, i.e., the respondent No. 4, has failed to comply with the legal requirement and assessed total tax payable on January 30, 1993 to the tune of Rs. 6,24,066.80 on turnover of Rs. 39,24,987.43. This amount of tax as assessed is inclusive of interest of Rs. 2,31,568. However, the petitioner s firm at their own instance deposited a sum of Rs. 2,61,724.90 within the prescribed time. As per provisions of sub-section (3) of sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner's firm had preferred an appeal before the Tripura Sales Tax Tribunal, Government of Tripura under section 22 of the Act. The Tribunal though partly allowed the appeal by order dated January 10, 1995, but just and proper claim of the petitioner's firm has been denied. 9.. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders passed by the first appellate authority as well as by the Tripura Sales Tax Tribunal, the petitioner's firm has preferred the instant writ petition praying for quashing/cancelling/setting aside the aforesaid two orders. 10. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that while the assessment order of the petitioner's firm was for the year 1985-86, the impugned assessment was made onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch the petitioner's firm cannot be asked to pay 10 per cent tax by making the amendment with retrospective effect and the taxing authority cannot also ask to pay sales tax on the turnover involved in the consolidated contract work for the period before August 1, 1984, as the petitioner's firm did not collect any sales tax up to the period July 31, 1984 A.D. from the beginning of the assessment year 1391 B.S. (i.e., assessment year 1984) on the materials involved in the consolidated contract works. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that retrospective demand of the tax by the Government is not legal and valid inasmuch as, impugned assessment was made only on January 30, 1993 for the assessment year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame has already been held valid by this Court, I do not propose to discuss the case laws cited to that effect by learned State Counsel. 16.. The only contention of Mr. S.C. Saha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, is that since the execution of the contract works of the petitioner s firm was under the Government of Tripura and as the amended provision of the Act were not in existence at the relevant period, required sales tax could not be collected from the concerned department under the Government of Tripura and in case they are liable to pay the tax as per the amended provision, they may be allowed to collect the same from the concerned department, which also happens to be Government department. Mr. S.C. Saha has al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the apex Court held that: The differential amount of tax consequent to that amendment could not be escaped merely because the assessee had not collected the same from the consumer. The apex Court further held, It is a settled position that an assessee is liable to pay sales tax and the question whether he has collected it from the consumer or not is of no consequence. His liability is by virtue of being an assessee under the Act. 18.. In the instant case, it is not the case of the petitioner's firm that they are not liable to pay sales tax with retrospective effect as per amended Act, but only prayer made before this Court on behalf of the petitioner is that they may be allowed to collect the sales tax from the concer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
