2021 (9) TMI 427

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. Brief facts are as under: The petitioner was engaged in the business of import and sale of material such as, black trap from Bangladesh. The dealer was registered under the Tripura Value Added Tax Act. On 22.02.2013 the Assessing Officer passed an order levying unpaid tax and penalty of Rs. 5.97 lakhs (rounded off), Rs. 12.87 lakhs (rounded off) and Rs. 19.17 lakhs (rounded off) for the financial years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively. This order of assessment records that despite issuance of notices under Section 31(1) of the TVAT Act on several occasions and fixing of date of hearing of the assessment proceedings also on several occasions, neither the dealer nor his representative appeared before the assessing authority.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....issed on default. With the above observation the case is disposed off." 4. In this order thus the revisional authority recorded that the petitioner is not appearing consistently since long time and dodging the proceedings. He, therefore, formed a belief that the petitioner was not interested in disposal of the petition. He, therefore, dismissed the revision petition for default. 5. According to the petitioner, he thereupon filed a restoration application on 30.12.2013 which assertion the department has strongly denied. In this application, the petitioner had contended that he was not aware of the legal technicalities and he depended on his lawyer. The order dismissing the revision petition for default may be recalled. 6. For severa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the petitioner that he had not received such order is baseless. The case of the petitioner was disposed of in November, 2013 which cannot be reopened 8 years later. 8. Appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel Mrs. Sujata Deb (Gupta) submitted that the petitioner had made an application for restoration immediately after dismissal of the revision petition for default. The revisional authority committed a serious error in ignoring such restoration petition. In any case, the petitioner's case needs to be examined on merits. 9. On the other hand, learned Addl. Government Advocate Mr. K. De opposed the petition. Relying on the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Government he submitted that the application dated 01.01.2014 for restorati....