2010 (4) TMI 996 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Interpretation of deposit requirement under Tripura VAT Act clarified by court, Commissioner's order set aside

The court interpreted Section 70 of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004, regarding the deposit requirement for filing a revision petition. It held that ... Whether the revision petitioner is to deposit 50 per cent of the amount of tax assessed or fifty per cent of the amount of tax assessed and also fifty percent of penalty levied while filing the revision petition under section 70 of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 against the assessment order passed by the assessing authority? Held that:- On a bare perusal of the impugned order dated March 20, 2010 passed by the Commissioner of Taxes it is clear that the Commissioner of Taxes misconstrued the said proviso to section 70(2) of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act. Accordingly, the impugned order dated March 20, 2010 is required to be interfered with and, hereby set aside. Appeal allowed. Issues: Interpretation of Section 70 of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004Analysis:The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of Section 70 of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004, specifically focusing on the requirement of depositing 50 percent of the tax assessed or penalty levied when filing a revision petition. The petitioner, a registered transporter, challenged an assessment order that imposed tax and penalty. The Commissioner of Taxes had ordered the petitioner to deposit 50 percent of both the tax assessed and the penalty imposed to file a revision petition under Section 70(2) of the Act. The petitioner argued that the proviso to Section 70 only required the deposit of 50 percent of either the tax assessed or the penalty levied, not both.The court delved into the principles of statutory interpretation, emphasizing that the true meaning of a provision must be derived from its clear language, considering the legislative intent and purpose behind the statute. It highlighted the maxim 'espressum facit cessare taciturn' and the principle that statutory enactments should be construed according to their plain meaning without adding unnecessary words. Referring to legal precedents, the court reiterated that the Legislature's intention should be respected, and every part of a statute must be given effect without adding words that are not present in the text.The court scrutinized the language of the proviso in Section 70(2) of the Act, noting the use of the disjunctive word 'or' between the requirements of depositing 50 percent of the tax assessed and 50 percent of the penalty levied. It concluded that the word 'or' indicated a choice between alternatives, necessitating the deposit of either 50 percent of the tax assessed or 50 percent of the penalty levied, not both simultaneously. Therefore, the court held that the Commissioner of Taxes had misinterpreted the provision by requiring the petitioner to deposit both amounts.Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner of Taxes and directed him to proceed with the revision case pending before him in accordance with the law, after hearing both parties. The writ petition was allowed based on the above observations and directions, clarifying the correct interpretation of Section 70(2) of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004.