9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 967X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate or can import them into the country in accordance with law. If he has not smuggled in the goods, he has not committed any offence. Whether the assessee had charged 20% tax over and above the contract value - Works Contract - Held that:- the state has failed to produce any evidence in regard to its conclusion that the dealer had charged 20% sales tax over and above the contract value. This leaves no manner of doubt that the contract value was inclusive of all taxes and duties and the stand of the Revenue in this regard is totally false. The entire exercise of reassessment was started only with a view to delay the re-payment of the sum of ₹ 14,65,591/-. It is indeed shocking that a State should behave in such a manner. The contract was available with the Revenue and yet it refused to read contract. The Commissioner of Taxes also came up with a fanciful argument that the assessee had committed an offence by importing chillers from Malaysia. Therefore, this is a fit case where exemplary costs should be imposed. - Petition disposed of - WP (C) No. 112 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 8-2-2016 - Deepak Gupta, CJ And S. Talapatra, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr A K Bhowmik, Sr A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demanded refund of ₹ 14,65,591/-(instead of ₹ 14,65,601/-). A reminder was issued on 8th December, 2008. Another reminder on 4th January, 2011 and finally a notice under Section 80 C.P.C was issued on 29th August, 2011. Thereafter an order was passed by the Commissioner of Taxes, respondent No.2 on 5th April, 2012 i.e. almost after four years issuing notice to the assessee as to why the assessment order dated 21.05.2008 for the years 1998-1999 to 2004-2005 should not be cancelled and the matter remanded to the Superintendent of Taxes for re-assessment. 4. The main ground which weighed with the revenue was that on the total contract of ₹ 3,05,11,585.00 the assessee had levied tax of 20% whereas only 4% tax was payable and, therefore, the assessee was liable to deposit this amount in the State treasury. The other ground was that the Assessing Authority had exempted the assessee from paying tax on three imported chiller machines of the value of ₹ 86,25,600/-. 5. The petitioner thereafter approach this Court challenge this order on various grounds. This Court noted all the facts and the authorities referred to by the learned counsel for the assessee and d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt with contempt and has totally violated all the directions given in the judgment in W. P(C) No. 232 of 2012 as he has not made reference to any of the judgments relied upon by the assessee and has passed the order mainly on two grounds. These are as follows: 11. As per the registration certificates issued to the dealer by the Superintendent of taxes under the TST Act, 1976 and CST Act, 1956 the dealer was authorized to import goods from outside the State but within the Indian Union for resale and use in the works contract in the State of Tripura Only. But the Goods used in the works contract in question were imported from Malaysia by the dealer company i.e. Voltas Ltd. for which it had not been authorized. Therefore, it is construed that the dealer committed offence by way of importing the goods from Malaysia un-authorisely. 12. Moreover, in the appellate order dated 10.03.2008 in Appeal Case No. 160-166/CHIV/ 2007 the Appellate Authority clearly mentioned that the dealer charged tax on the entire contract value worth of ₹ 3,05,11,685/- which relates to executed works in Airport Terminal building of Agartala Airport and the contract value includes the value of 3(t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a stipulation that these chillers had to be purchased from Malaysia. Even otherwise any dealer is not duty bound to buy goods from only within the State. He can buy goods from outside the State and bring them within the State or can import them into the country in accordance with law. If he has not smuggled in the goods, he has not committed any offence. 8. As far as the second finding is concerned the main issue was whether the assessee had charged 20% tax over and above the contract value of ₹ 3,05,11,585.00. Though the first appellate authority had given some findings in this regard, the Assessing Officer had found that in fact this assertion was not correct. The Commissioner has again remanded the case back for ascertaining this point. On 13.07.2015 we had directed the petitioner to place on record its contract entered into with the Airport Authority of India and had also given three opportunities to the State (Revenue Department) to produce any record to show on what basis it had came to the conclusion that the dealer had charged 20% sales tax over and above ₹ 3,05,11,585.00. The State has failed to produce any evidence in this regard. 9. On perusal of the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
