Assessment upheld on factual findings, but penalty fails for lack of hearing and incomplete survival of additions.

Additional tax assessed on disputed cement bags was upheld because the revision court found no perversity or legal error in the factual appreciation of records, stock discrepancies, damage claims, and lack of reliable supporting material. The penalty under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1979 was set aside because the statutory requirement of hearing or reasonable opportunity of hearing was not satisfied, and the penalty had been imposed summarily on the basis of assessment additions that did not fully survive in revision. The authority was left free to reconsider penalty afresh after giving the petitioner due hearing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the additional tax assessed on the petitioner by treating the disputed cement bags as taxable turnover could be interfered with; (ii) Whether the penalty imposed under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1979 was sustainable in the absence of adequate hearing.

Issue (i): Whether the additional tax assessed on the petitioner by treating the disputed cement bags as taxable turnover could be interfered with.

Analysis: The assessment turned on appreciation of records, stock discrepancies, transportation damage claims, and the absence of reliable supporting material. The factual findings recorded by the assessing authority were re-examined in revision and no perversity or legal error was demonstrated. In such circumstances, interference with the assessment on the additional tax component was not warranted.

Conclusion: The challenge to the assessment on the additional tax component failed and the assessment was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1979 was sustainable in the absence of adequate hearing.

Analysis: Penalty under Section 13 of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1979 required compliance with the statutory mandate of hearing or reasonable opportunity of hearing. The penalty was imposed in a summary manner and was founded on the entire additions made in assessment. Once part of the assessment basis was not retained in revision and adequate opportunity was not afforded before imposing penalty, the penalty could not stand. The proper course was to set aside the penalty while permitting the assessing authority to pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner.

Conclusion: The penalty order was set aside with liberty to proceed afresh after hearing the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The assessment was sustained, but the penalty was annulled and left open to be reconsidered in accordance with law after due hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty under a taxing statute cannot be sustained unless the statutory requirement of hearing or reasonable opportunity of hearing is strictly complied with, and a penalty founded on additions that do not fully survive cannot continue unchanged.

---