TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (8) TMI 494
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issioner of Taxes, Government of Tripura, which are marked as annexures A, B and E to the writ petitions. 4.. The facts of the case in a short compass are as follows: The writ petitioner is a tea estate owned and possessed by a company registered under the Companies Act having its registered office at Calcutta in the name and style "M/s. Peerless Tea & Industry Ltd.". According to the writ petitioner the Fatikcherra Tea Estate became a sick and a losing concern from the beginning of the year 1980; thus the Government of Tripura decided to take over the management of the petitioner's tea gardens and, as such, an Ordinance of November 13, 1986 was promulgated by the Governor of the State. By virtue of the said Government policy and the order, Tripura Tea Development Corporation was appointed as custodian of the tea garden of the writ petitioner and on the same day, i.e., November 13, 1986 a representative of the said Corporation took over the charge of the garden. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that Fatikcherra Tea Estate was grossly under mismanagement prior to 1986 and factually there was no sale of any processed tea during the period as aforesaid and that the individ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er was passed on July 12, 1995 for the assessment years 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 respectively. The learned Commissioner of Taxes held that under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, the appellate authority has no discretion to consider the appeal unless at least 5 per cent of the tax assessed has been paid. The learned Commissioner of Taxes also observed that section 9 of the Tripura Sales Tax Act does not provide any period of limitation for completion of assessment proceedings. The instant proceedings were completed under section 9(4) of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 and, as such, the proceedings for the assessment years 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87, in other words the assessment years 1984 to 1993 were started on December 17, 1992 and were completed on July 12, 1995. The learned Commissioner of Taxes also found that the said proceedings were completed ex parte under section 9(4) of the Tripura Sales Tax Act even though it had continued for 3 years; thus, the contention of the writ petitioner that the assessment proceedings are barred by limitation is not backed by legal provision. Being aggrieved by these orders passed by the Tax Department, the writ petitioner filed these three (3) w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to produce the books of account for the years 1984-85 to 1991-92 and complete books of account for the year 1992-93 before the 4th respondent, therefore, the respondent No. 4 took up all the cases together under section 9(4) of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 depending on the information available in the petitioner's file maintained in the office of the 4th respondent, Superintendent of Taxes and the documents and, the account books so far produced by the writ petitioner. 7.. In support of his argument, Shri T.K. Dey, learned counsel for the writ petitioner relied upon three decisions of this Court: (i) in a case between Altafur Rahman v. Union of India reported in (1986) 1 GLR 14; in another case between Dwijendra Kumar Bhattacharjee v. Superintendent of Taxes, Government of Tripura, Agartala reported in [1990] 78 STC 393; (1989) 2 GLR 461 and also in a case between Monoranjan Chakraborty v. State of Tripura reported in [1991] 81 STC 291. 8.. In the first case, Altafur Rahman (1986) 1 GLR 14, this Court held that on the facts and circumstances of the case the remedy provided by way of appeal was not an alternative, efficacious remedy and thus the writ petition was maintainabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment on speculation or on fanciful ground". Best judgment "does not negate the exercise of judgment on the part of the officer. The assessing officer who makes the best judgment assessment, has to make an intelligible, well-grounded estimate rather than launch on pure surmise." 13.. On the other hand in support of his arguments Shri U.B. Saha, learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon a decision of the apex Court rendered in a case between Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali reported in [1973] 32 STC 77, wherein the apex Court held thus: "..........Prima facie, the assessing authority is the best judge of the situation. It is his 'best judgment' and not of anyone else. The High Court could not substitute its 'best judgment' for that of the assessing authority. In the case of 'best judgment' assessments, the courts will have to first see whether the accounts maintained by the assessee were rightly rejected as unreliable". In the said case, viz., Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali [1973] 32 STC 77 (SC), a reference was made by the Board of Revenue, Guwalior, partly at the instance of the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i U.B. Saha. Another contention has been made by Shri U.B. Saha, learned counsel for the respondents that relying upon a Madras High Court decision in a case between State of Tamil Nadu v. E.P. Nawab Marakkadai reported in [1996] 100 STC 1, in which the Madras High Court upheld the statutory provisions of law under section 31 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 by which particularly the second proviso to section 31 of the Act places an embargo on the appeal being entertained unless it is accompanied by satisfactory proof of the payment of the tax admitted by the appellant; if there is no payment of the admitted tax within the period allowed for filing the appeal or within the extended period as specified in the Act for condonation of delay in preferring an appeal, no appeal can be said to have been filed. In other words, the pre-requisite deposits are required before admitting an appeal under the said Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, Shri Saha contended. 16.. It is well-settled that the High Court cannot direct any authority under article 226 of the Constitution to exercise its discretion in a particular way. However, the High Court has its extensive jurisdiction ....