TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 1083
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o that the petitioner can avail of the concessional rate of duty on the goods supplied from outside State. 2. Brief facts are as under: Respondents No.1 to 3 are State authorities. Respondent No.3 in particular is a Principal Secretary of Power Department of the Government of Tripura. Respondent No.4 is a Managing Director of Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited (hereinafter to be referred to as TSECL). TSECL had floated a tender for installation and erection of transmission lines. The petitioner which is a Kolkata based company, had participated in this tender process. The tender of the petitioner was accepted and for three different projects work orders were issued in December, 2008 and January & July, 2009. Clause 13 which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tered dealer under the provisions of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 in the State of Tripura and it is a supplier of the materials to the respondent No.4. The petitioner, therefore, cannot claim "C" Form in relation to such transactions. The petitioner can claim "C" Form only from the authority under whose jurisdiction the petitioner is registered. In fact, the respondent No.4 in the affidavit-in-reply has disputed the petitioner"s claim for payment of duty at concessional rate. 5. The respondents No.1 and 2, i.e. the taxing authorities of the State of Tripura have, however, taken a different stand. The stand taken by the said authorities as emerging from an affidavit-in-reply dated 05.11.2016 is as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."Requisition Statement" of required C Form along with copies of permits, invoice etc. to the Superintendent of Taxes Charge-I, Agartala. A copy of letter dated 25.06.2012 and a Statement of "C" Form Requisition of TSECL Dated. 26.06.2012 are annexed here with and marked as Annexure-R/1 & R/2 respectively." 6. Appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel Mr. T.K. Deb pointed out that as per the taxing authorities the reason for not granting "C" Form was the mismatch in the valuation. The respondent No.4 on the other hand has now taken a different stand namely that no such "C" Forms can be issued at all. This according to the counsel is a wholly untenable argument. 7. Learned counsel Mr. A. Nandi appeared for respondents No.1 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... completely invalid. As noted in the affidavit-in-reply, the main ground taken was that the petitioner was a registered dealer in the State of Tripura, which itself being somewhat of a strange ground, in any case, in fact the petitioner was not a registered dealer in the State of Tripura at the relevant time. The expansion of the opposition of the respondent No.4 by its advocate through oral arguments, is also wholly unsustainable in law. The respondent No.4 does not hold the authority to decide the taxability of the sale in question. Whether the sale should invite concessional rate of duty or not is to be judged by the taxing authorities. It was perhaps because of this reason that the respondent No.4 itself had also approached the VAT depa....