2022 (3) TMI 858

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Mangal Debbarma appearing on behalf of the State respondents. 2. Prayers made in the writ petition are as follows: "In the premise aforesaid it is prayed that your Lordship may be pleased to issue RULE NISI calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why: a) a writ of certiorari or any other writ, direction, order should not be issued for quashing the order of assessment dated 23.11.2016 (Annexure P-13) passed by the Superintendent of Taxes, Agartala as the same suffers from an inherent jurisdictional error; AND b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ and/or order should not be issued directing the respondents not to levy VAT tax on goods reckoned in the impugned order which have already suffered....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tral Sales Tax Act would apply equally to transfer of property in goods involved in execution of works contract." 4. The reply of the State as reflected in the counter affidavit in paragraph-7 was as follows: "7. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph-2 of the petition, the deponent denies the same. The deponent begs to state that the tax which has been levied is within the jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority, as VAT is levied on works contract as per procedure of law. No tax has been levied only on the tax paid goods which were purchased in the course of interstate sale and as projected by the petitioner. The Assessing Authority is within its jurisdiction to levy tax on 'deemed sales' under Section 4 of the Tr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e where further made liable to tax under the State VAT Act." The aforesaid stand is clearly not in consonance with the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court (Agartala Bench) nor in consonance with the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Builders Association case (supra). 5. It is well settled in law as noted hereinabove that transactions under the CST Act 'C' forms which were provided by the purchaser (NEEPCO) ought to be deleted from the taxable turnover under the TVAT Act. In other words, all transactions under the CST Act ought to have been deleted apart from deletion as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Builders Association case (supra). Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that....