https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782326 Delayed penalty notices under the Tripura VAT Act were held unsustainable where proceedings were initiated many years after the alleged transactions; although Section 77 prescribed no express limitation, the power had to be exercised within a reasonable time, and notices issued after more than five years were treated as stale, arbitrary, and mala fide. The Court also held that a transporter's security deposit taken under the earlier VAT regime could not be retained after the GST regime came into force, because the statutory basis for withholding it no longer survived. The adverse orders were quashed and refund of the deposit with interest and costs was directed. en-us Tue, 25 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Nov 2025 08:24:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782326 Delayed penalty notices under the Tripura VAT Act were held unsustainable where proceedings were initiated many years after the alleged transactions; although Section 77 prescribed no express limitation, the power had to be exercised within a reasonable time, and notices issued after more than five years were treated as stale, arbitrary, and mala fide. The Court also held that a transporter's security deposit taken under the earlier VAT regime could not be retained after the GST regime came into force, because the statutory basis for withholding it no longer survived. The adverse orders were quashed and refund of the deposit with interest and costs was directed. Case-Laws VAT / Sales Tax Tue, 25 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782326