TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (10) TMI 493
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he petitioner, a company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and registered dealer under Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976, assailed the order of the Revisional Authority(Commissioner of Taxes), Government of Tripura, dated 26.03.2012, passed in Revision Case No.10/CHIV/ 2011(Annexure-8 to the writ petition). 3. By the impugned order, the writ petitioner had been directed to appear personally or through an authorized representative before the Revisional Authority to explain as to why the assessment order dated 21.05.2008 for the years 1998- 99 to 2004-05 shall not be cancelled and shall not be remanded to the Superintendent of Taxes, Charge-IV, Agartala, for making reassessment afresh for the points or/questions mentioned in paragraph 6 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Regarding observation at point-iii, the Assessing Authority did not ascertain the requirement, purchase and utilization of each item in different contract works. It is not clear from the re-assessment order that scrutiny of the bills/invoices raised period to period and comparing the bills vis-à-vis return turnover, tax payment, through works contract as well as counter sale as claimed by the dealer has been done by the Assessing Authority. iv) Regarding observation at point-iv, the Assessing Authority obtained classified accounts of purchase, sale and stock. v) Regarding observation at point-v, the Assessing Authority observed that no 20% tax was levied on the entire value of Rs.3,05,11,685.00 and only 4% tax on the said gross va....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Taxes), Government of Tripura, is very much bias. In support of his submission, Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Shivam Coke Industries, Dhanbad & Ors. : (2011) 8 SCC 656. Paragraphs 49, 50 and 51 of the judgment in Shivam Coke Industries (supra) read as follows: "49. In State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Coop. Milk Producers Union Ltd. : (2007) 11 SCC 363, this Court held(SCC p.367, para 18) "18. It is trite that if no period of limitation has been prescribed, statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable period. What, however, shall be the reasonable period would depend upon the nature of the statute, rights and liabil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e date of passing the order against which revision lies under Section 21 of the Act. In the present case, it appears that the assessment order, dated 21.05.2008, passed by the Superintendent of Taxes, Government of Tripura, under Charge No.IV, Agartala, is very much under consideration by the Government for refunding excess payment said to have been made by the writ petitioner under the said assessment order dated 21.05.2008. 7. We have already made the observation that the Revisional Authority has not finally decided the points mentioned in paragraph 6 of the impugned order dated 26.03.2012 and for which the writ petitioner had been asked to appear before the Revisional Authority. However, in the present case, as the learned senior counse....