Registration under Tripura Sales Tax Act required for selling goods within state; Liability determined in assessment proceedings

The court held that registration under the Tripura Sales Tax Act was required for selling goods within Tripura, but applying for registration would not automatically make the petitioners liable for sales tax. The court emphasized that determining whether the sales were interstate or intrastate was a mixed question of fact and law to be decided in assessment proceedings, not through writ petitions. The petitioners could apply for registration and obtain form No. XVIII without automatically incurring sales tax liability, with the liability to be determined through proper assessment proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the petitioners are required to be registered under the Tripura Sales Tax Act to transport goods to project sites in Tripura.
2. Whether the sales by the petitioners to respondents are interstate sales liable to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act.
3. Whether the petitioners can be issued form No. XVIII for transportation without being registered under the Tripura Sales Tax Act.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners, owning a small-scale industrial unit, were awarded contracts for supplying stone chips to project sites in Tripura. The Superintendent of Taxes, Tripura, refused to issue form No. XVIII for transportation, stating the petitioners needed to be registered under the Tripura Sales Tax Act. Petitioners contended that registration was unnecessary as the sales were interstate and they had previously received form No. XVIII for similar transactions within Tripura. The court held that registration under the Act was required for selling goods within Tripura, but applying for registration would not automatically make them liable for sales tax.

2. The sales tax authorities of Tripura argued that the sales were intrastate, making the petitioners liable for registration under the Tripura Sales Tax Act. They cited relevant provisions to support their stance. The court noted that determining whether the sales were interstate or intrastate was a mixed question of fact and law. It clarified that such issues should be decided in assessment proceedings initiated under the respective tax Acts, not through writ petitions.

3. The court emphasized that form No. XVIII could only be issued to registered dealers as per the Tripura Sales Tax Rules. While the petitioners had received the form previously without registration, the court highlighted that there was no estoppel in tax matters. It stated that compliance with the rule requiring registration for the form did not automatically imply liability for sales tax. The court directed that if the petitioners applied for registration and obtained form No. XVIII, it would not make them immediately liable for sales tax under the Tripura Sales Tax Act. The liability would be determined through proper assessment proceedings.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition, directing that the petitioners could apply for registration and obtain form No. XVIII without automatically incurring sales tax liability. The decision clarified the requirements for registration under the Tripura Sales Tax Act and emphasized that liability for sales tax would be determined through appropriate assessment proceedings.

---