TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1794
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded Tax Rules, 2005 [TVAT Rules, 2005] made thereunder. 3) To secure such registration, the petitioner had deposited on 12.7.2013 an amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- as security deposit with respondent No. 3 in view of sub-section (4) of Section 22 of the TVAT Act, 2004 (vide Annexure 1 in W.P.(C) No. 37 of 2025). 4) The TVAT Act was repealed when the Tripura State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [TSGST Act, 2017] was enacted with effect from 01.07.2017 as per notification dt. 29.06.2017 issued by the Government of Tripura, Finance Department (Taxes & Excise). 5) Under Section 174 of the TSGST Act, 2017, except in respect of goods included in the Entry 54 of List II of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, the TVAT Act, 2004 was repealed w.e.f. 01.07.2017. The said entry deals with only five petroleum products and alcohol for human consumption. 6) Believing that after the coming into force of the TSGST Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01.07.2017, the provisions of the TVAT Act, 2004 are no longer applicable and the security deposit is not necessary to be given to the GST authorities and so it cannot be retained by the respondents, petitioner filed an application dt. 05.04.2023 (Annexure 2 in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 1,16,739/- FEBRUARY, 2014 Rs.887/- Rs. 54,390/- Rs. 1331/- Rs. 81,585/- MARCH, 2014 Rs. 24,243/- Rs. 2424/- Rs. 36,365/- Rs. 3636/- 12) The petitioner then filed rectification petitions (Annexure-7 in W.P.(C) No. 37 of 2025) on 14.05.2024 under Section 74 of the TVAT Act against all the impugned orders imposing tax and penalty contending that assessment is barred beyond 5 years from the corresponding assessment year under Section 33 of the said Act placing reliance on a Division bench decision of this Court in T.R. Freight Movers v. State of Tripura and others W.P.(C) No. 42 of 2005 dt. 30.03.2011 (Agartala Bench of Gauhati High Court) (DB). 13) On 01.08.2024 (Annexure-8 in W.P.(C) No. 37 of 2025) the respondent No. 3 rejected the said applications for rectification stating that under Section 69 of the TVAT Act, 2004 (Rule 22 of the TVAT Rules, 2005) and under Section 70(2) of the TVAT Act, 2004 (rule 24 of the TVAT Rules, 2005), there is no power vested upon the said respondent to rectify any order issued or quash any order under Section 77 of the TVAT Act, 2004. 14) All the show cause notices and the order dt. 18.03.2024 and order dt. 0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax at the hands of the dealer, because the transporter does not fall within the definition of dealer as embodied in the TVAT Act, 2004; that there is no mechanism provided in the said Act for assessment of tax, which a transporter helps to evade; so the liability to pay tax imposed on a transporter by Section 77 of the Act is constitutionally impermissible. 22) It held that the TVAT Act, 2004 was enacted under Entry 54 of List II of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, that tax under the Act can only be levied on 'taxable turnover of the goods'; and in exercise of such powers, 'tax' cannot be imposed on the transporter, which the dealer is, otherwise required to pay. 23) It declared that, in the absence of a deeming provision that if a transporter delivers to any dealer or any person goods without obtaining from him a copy of the valid permit or if the transporter conceals the actual particulars of the consignment transported by him, the goods in question, so transported by the transporter, shall be deemed to have been sold by the transporter within the State of Tripura, Section 77 providing for the realization of 'tax' from the transporters, is beyond legislative competence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) Thus the respondents are bound by the said decision in T.R. Freight Movers (supra) and M/s. M.S. Freight Carriers (India) Private Limited (supra) as its operation has not been stayed by the Supreme Court till date and they cannot deviate from it. 31) A reading of the orders dt. 18.03.2024 passed by respondent No. 3 shows that the decision in T.R. Freight Movers (1 supra) has been violated by the said official in the following manner: (a) tax has been imposed on the petitioner for the period from September, 2013 to March 2014 which is impermissible as per the said judgment; and (b) penalty of 150% was imposed mechanically without determining, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner's conduct warrants such imposition of 150% of penalty i.e., whether petitioner had acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. 32) For the period September, 2013 - March, 2014, the show cause notices had been issued on 04.07.2023, 14.07.2023 and 18.07.2023 i.e., with delay of more than 9 years from the dates of alleged violation by petitioner. 33) For the per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tantial acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 where there was a delay of 5 years in initiating proceedings for levy of penalty, the Supreme Court held that proceedings have to be initiated within a reasonable time. It declared: "93. .... In the absence of any period of time and limitation prescribed by the enactment, every authority is to exercise power within a reasonable period. What would be the reasonable period would depend upon facts of each case, such as whether the violation was hidden and camouflaged and thereby the Board or the authorities did not have any knowledge. Though, no hard and fast rules can be laid down in this regard as determination of the question will depend on the facts of each case, the nature of the statute, the rights and liabilities thereunder and other consequences, including prejudice caused and whether third party rights have been created are relevant factors. Whenever a question with regard to inordinate delay in issuance of a show-cause notice is made, it is open to the noticee to contend that the show-cause notice is bad on the ground of delay and it is the duty of the authority/officer to consider the question objective....