2000 (11) TMI 1079 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Supreme Court clarifies Tripura Sales Tax Act provisions, highlights writ jurisdiction exceptions.

State of Tripura Versus Manoranjan Chakraborty and Others

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment without imposing any costs. The judgment clarified the validity of the ... APPEAL — TAX OR PENALTY TO BE PAID BEFORE APPEAL IS ENTERTAINED — DISCRETION GIVEN TO APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO REDUCE AMOUNT TO BE DEPOSITED TO NOT LESS THAN 50 PER CENT Issues:Challenge to provisos under section 20(1) and section 21(2) of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976.Analysis:The High Court struck down the provisos to section 20(1) and section 21(2) of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976, which required payment of tax assessed or penalty levied for entertaining an appeal/revision. The provisos stated that no appeal would be entertained unless the tax or penalty is paid, with discretion for the authority to permit payment of not less than 50% of the tax or penalty. The relevant sections and provisos were quoted in the judgment.The Supreme Court referred to previous cases like Gujarat Agro Industries Co. Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and Shyam Kishore v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, where similar provisions were upheld. The Court held that the impugned provisions in this case were valid. It was emphasized that even though the Act's provisions should generally be followed, the writ jurisdiction could intervene in cases of gross injustice or high-handed illegal orders by the assessing authority to ensure substantive justice.In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment without imposing any costs. The judgment clarified the validity of the challenged provisions under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976, while also highlighting the exceptional circumstances where the writ jurisdiction could be invoked for ensuring justice despite statutory remedies being available.