9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 882X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arriers" and "transporting agents", who carry/transport taxable goods, in the State of Tripura, to apply for registration in a prescribed format. The petitioner accordingly applied for, and was granted, registration as a "transporter"/carrier of taxable goods in the State of Tripura. Being a registered "transporter", the petitioner is required to obtain form No. XIV from the Superintendent of Taxes concerned in order to enable the petitioner transport goods from one place to another in the State of Tripura. Under the scheme of the relevant statute and the rules framed thereunder, the names of importing "dealer", with the dealer's registration number, place of dispatch, contents, weight, value, details of consigner's invoice and some other particulars, are required to be filled up by the "transporter" in form No. XIV prior to transacting business as a "transporter". Two copies of such filled up forms are required to be surrendered at the entry point of the sales tax check post at Churaibari. The authorities concerned, upon collecting the form aforementioned at Churaibari, transmit one copy of the form to the respective Superintendent of Taxes, who had issued the form, so as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how that three of the consignments, out of 753 taxable consignments, had been carried against permits issued in form No. XVIII and that out of 753 such consignments, only two consignments were non-taxable. Thus, the total number of consignments, which according to the order, dated September 21, 1998, were found to have been delivered, were as many as 748 without obtaining requisite permit. The Superintendent of Taxes, Charge III, Agartala, therefore, treated the remaining consignments, (i.e., 743) as having been delivered without requisite permit. By the order dated September 21, 1998, aforementioned, it is also claimed that the branch manager of the petitioner-firm had undertaken to produce requisite materials as aforesaid on condition that the petitioner-firm shall be deemed to have delivered the taxable consignments, as alleged in the show-cause notice aforementioned, without obtaining permits, if the petitioner-firm had failed to produce the requisite materials to show that only 300 numbers of consignments had been carried without requisite permits. By the order, dated September 21, 1998, it is indicated that the branch manager had confessed to the offence committed by way of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er to file appropriate representation before the revisional authority seeking re-consideration of the matter. This order was passed on the ground that the petitioner had claimed to be in possession of requisite permits, whereunder the alleged transportation of consignments had taken place. The representation was directed to be filed within a period of fourteen days from the date of dismissal of the writ petition. It was further directed that the petitioner's representation shall be preceded by a deposit of rupees three lakhs. The petitioner, then, deposited the requisite sum of rupees three lakhs, as had been directed by the court, by its order dated June 22, 2001, in the said writ petition. The representation, which the petitioner submitted to the revisional authority, in terms of the directions given by the court, in the said writ petition, on June 22, 2001, came to be disposed of, on May 27, 2002, by the revisional authority, who took the view that since the delivery of the consignments had taken place prior to August 22, 2000 (when section 13A of the TST Act had not come into force), no penalty could have been imposed on the petitioner under section 32A of the TST Act. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents. This writ petition has raised a very simple and short question and the question is: when the revisional authority had already passed, on May 27, 2002, an order holding that since the alleged transportation of taxable consignments had taken place prior to February 28, 2000, was recourse to section 32(1)(a) not permissible in law? This question, in turn, brings us to yet another question and the question is: When the revisional authority had already held that since the alleged transportation of taxable consignments had taken place prior to February 28, 2000, recourse to section 32(1)(a) was not permissible in law; whether it was still permissible for the Superintendent of Taxes to pass any order or raise any notice of demand directing the petitioner to pay such sum(s), which have been imposed on the petitioner by taking recourse to section 32(1A) of the TST Act. In other words, the question is as to whether a Superintendent of Tax is empowered to issue a notice of demand for payment of a sum, which has been held, by the revisional authority, to be not recoverable? Ordinarily, revisional jurisdiction is analogous to the power of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s binding upon the Assistant Collectors and the Appellate Collectors, who function under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principle of judicial discipline requires that the subordinate authorities should follow the orders of the higher appellate authorities unreservedly. The mere fact that the order of the appellate authority is not "acceptable" to the Department or is, in the opinion of the Department concerned, illegal or contrary to law, cannot be a ground to act contrary to the directions given in the appellate order. If this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be undue harassment of assessee and chaos in the administration of tax laws. Same principle would, undoubtedly, govern exercise of revisional jurisdiction too. What emerges from the above discussion is that an order passed by a revisional authority under the TST Act and the Rules framed thereunder, would be binding on all the authorities subordinate to the revisional authority. The revisional authority's order can be challenged, under the scheme of the TST Act and the Rules framed thereunder, before the Tribunal as envisaged under the statute in question. So long as the order, passed by a revisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
