2023 (3) TMI 830 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court sets aside show cause notice under Tripura VAT Act, imposes cost on authority for non-speaking order

The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the challenged show cause notice and order issued under Section 70(1) of the Tripura VAT Act, 2004. It ... Validity of order of passed by the Revisional authority - Non-speaking order - Refund of the excess amount paid - jurisdictional error in completing the assessment, on the part of Commissioner of Taxes - case of petitioner is that the Commissioner of Taxes without assuming jurisdiction under Section 70(1) of the Act the order has been passed - HELD THAT:- In the case in hand, there is no jurisdictional error in the assessment of the assessing authority, and accordingly, the respondent no. 2 has acted beyond section 70(1) of the Act. This casual approach of the respondent no. 2 cannot be permitted since he is trying only to prevent the payment of refund amount to the petitioner. The respondent authorities acting as quasi judiciary authority by invoking the power under statute are expected to act judiciously, but they are not expected to work as money generating authority. Very often it is noticed by this court that the orders are passed by the respondent authorities in an arbitrary manner which is driving the Tax-payers/dealers to file appeals by depositing 50% of the disputed tax while filing statutory appeals. But for the casual approach of the respondent-authorities, a Tax-payer/dealer cannot be put to hardship. Such action of the respondent-authorities cannot be appreciated. The impugned order dated 21.05.2020 is due of its nature. This is nothing else, but a burden on the business class. This court finds that the officers need to be more vigilant and tax-payers friendly. Accordingly, a cost of Rs. 25,000/- is imposed upon the revisional authority, and the said amount to be paid from his salary to the credit of Tripura High Court Bar Association for passing such orders. Petition allowed. Issues involved:The legal judgment involves a challenge to a show cause notice and order issued under Section 70(1) of the Tripura VAT Act, 2004 regarding the refund of excess tax paid by the petitioner.Summary:Challenge to Show Cause Notice and Order:The petitioner challenged a show cause notice and order issued under Section 70(1) of the Tripura VAT Act, 2004, regarding the refund of excess tax paid. The petitioner submitted returns for assessment years 2015-16 to 2017-18, showing an excess payment of Rs. 30,25,031. The assessing authority confirmed the excess payment and ordered a refund. However, a subsequent notice questioned this assessment, leading to a legal challenge.Arguments and Decision:The petitioner argued that the assessment was completed without jurisdictional error and that the order was illegal. The respondent contended that the notice and order were lawful. The court examined the assessment records and found that the excess payment and refund were correctly determined. It noted that the assessing authority had not erred, and the revisional authority's actions were beyond the scope of Section 70(1) of the Act.Judicial Observations and Directions:The court criticized the revisional authority for passing a non-speaking order without proper explanation or verification of records. It emphasized that authorities should act judiciously and not as money-generating entities. The court imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the revisional authority, payable to the Tripura High Court Bar Association. The writ petition was allowed, setting aside the impugned notice and order.Conclusion:The court found no jurisdictional error in the assessment and deemed the actions of the revisional authority as improper. It emphasized the need for authorities to be vigilant and taxpayer-friendly. The imposed cost was to deter arbitrary actions and ensure fair treatment of taxpayers. The notice and order were set aside, and the revisional authority was directed to pay the imposed cost promptly.