9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 882X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case at hand, it becomes clear that even if the conclusion reached by the revisional authority in its order dated May 27, 2002, was illegal or incorrect, the Superintendent of Taxes concerned could not have passed any order and issue notice of demand, such as the one, which stands impugned in this writ petition, and/or pass any such order, which stands impugned in this writ petition. Thus while the notice of demand dated May 12/13, 2004, and also the impugned order dated May 14, 2004, are hereby set aside and quashed, the respondents are left at liberty to take recourse to such provisions of law as may be permissible for the remedy of their grievances. - W.P. (C) No. 278 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 23-9-2009 - ANSARI I.A. , J. I.A. ANSARI J. The petitioner, in this writ petition, is in the business of carrying goods of different dealers , who have been carrying on business, at Agartala and at other places, in the State of Tripura. The persons, who fall within the definition of a dealer , as given in the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 (in short, the TST Act ), are required to get themselves registered, in terms of the TST Act, with the Superintendent of Taxes within whose jur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther. Amongst other requirements, which rule 64A embodies, it is one of the requirements that the transporter, carrier and transporting agent shall maintain, in a register in form No. XXII, a true and correct account of every consignment of goods transported into the State of Tripura and, in form No. XXIII, of all goods transported outside Tripura. Let me, now, set out the facts of the present writ petition. By two notices, dated August 31, 1998 and August 25, 1998, issued by the Superintendent of Taxes, Charge III, Agartala, the petitioner-firm was called upon to show cause, if any, as to why penal action shall not be taken against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had delivered as many as 753 numbers of taxable consignments without obtaining requisite permits in form No. XVIII. Following the show-cause notices, dated August 31, 1998 and August 25, 1998, aforementioned, an order was passed, on September 21, 1998, by the Superintendent of Taxes, Charge III, indicating therein that pursuant to the said two notices, the Branch Manager of the petitioner-firm had appeared, on August 29, 1998, before the Superintendent and submitted that out of 753 numbers of taxable c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r alia, that verification of the alleged transportation of taxable consignments had been made after a period of about two years and the records, being too old, could not be properly maintained and produced. Though the petitioner sought for some time to make its submission in support of the revision, which it had filed, the revisional authority passed an order, on December 29, 2000, dismissing the revision. Following the dismissal of the revision, a letter, dated April 27, 2001, was issued by the Superintendent of Taxes concerned, whereby a demand for payment of Rs. 68,95,795 was made assessing the said amount to be the outstanding liability against the petitioner-firm and by the said letter, one of partners of the petitioner-firm was directed to make payment of the said sum of Rs. 68,95,795 within May 15, 2001. A notice of demand was accordingly issued on April 27, 2001. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the revision, the petitioner filed a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, which gave rise to W.P. (C) No. 341 of 2001, seeking direction from this court to be issued to the respondents to give adequate opportunity to the petitioner to produce delivery permit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted to make payment of Rs. 63,32,922 by May 30, 2004. By filing this writ petition, under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has put to challenge the various orders, which have been passed and the notices of demand, which have been issued against the petitioner, directing, eventually, the petitioner, on May 14, 2004, to make payment of its outstanding liabilities of Rs. 63,32,922 by May 30, 2004. Resisting the writ petition, the respondents have submitted, in effect, thus: Since section 32(1)(a) of the TST Act stood inserted prior to the delivery of the consignments, the assessing authority had acted within the ambit of its powers, when it raised the demand for payment on the ground of taxable consignments having been transported without requisite permit and that the order dated May 27, 2002, passed by the revisional authority is wholly contrary to law inasmuch as the revisional authority has incorrectly held that the demand for such payment, raised by the Superintendent of Taxes is illegal on the ground that the demand had been raised in respect of transactions, which had taken place prior to February 28, 2000. This apart, steps for rectification, unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties. Under such hierarchical statutory system, as contemplated under the TST Act, the orders, passed by a subordinate authority, are subject to examination, in exercise of revisional powers, by the Commissioner of Taxes both suo motu and on the application filed by the aggrieved person. From the fact of the conferment of statutory revisional power on the Commissioner of Taxes over the subordinate authorities, certain consequences flow and follow. The revisional authorities shall have jurisdiction to reverse, annul or modify the orders of the subordinate authorities against whose orders a revision has been filed and in the event of remand, such authority shall have to rehear the matter and comply with such directions as may be indicated in the revisional order. The revisional authority has power to issue corrective directions, which will be binding on such subordinate authority; consequently failure, on the part of the subordinate authority, to follow such direction, or disregard such direction, would be destructive of the hierarchical system in the administration of justice. In the case of Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. reported in [1991] 55 ELT 433 (SC), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
