TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 303
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngle Judge in WP(C) No.726 of 2024. c) Pass order staying the operation of the judgment & order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in WP(C) No.726 of 2024. d) Pass any other order or orders as deem fit and proper having regard to the facts & circumstances of the case." [4] The facts in brief are that the an assessment order had been passed in respect to the dealer, M.P. Khaitan, by the Superintendent of Taxes, Charge-IV, Agartala. However, the dealer dissatisfied with the assessment order and filed a Revision petition before the Revisional Authority under the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004. Along with the revision petition, the dealer deposited the required amount i.e. Rs. 2,00,06,981/- as required for filing Revision petition. After hearing the parties, the Revisional Authority, i.e., the Commissioner of Taxes, issued order in Revision Case No. 01 to 06/Ch-IV/2013 on 07.02.2014. The Authority directed the Superintendent of Taxes, Charge IV, Agartala, to conduct a fresh assessment for the disputed years, i.e., 2006-07 to 2011-12, within a specified period. On 28.03.2015 an order with heading "Assessment Order" was passed by the Superintenden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....involved in the process of distortion. Thereafter, show-cause notice was issued and after receiving reply, authority issued suspension order; afterward Disciplinary Proceeding was initiated against the earring officials including the writ petitioner, the respondent herein. [8] At this stage, there remains no reason for taking inference that the distortion took place before the year 2017, when the writ petitioner was in the post of Inspector of Taxes. The entire issue is to be examined by the process of departmental proceeding. After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and observed as under: "14.2. I have perused the said citations of the Hon'ble Apex Court. There is no dispute on record that excepting very rare and exceptional cases there is no scope to interfere with the departmental proceeding. The citations referred by Learned Advocate General at the time of hearing are no doubt very much relevant but those citations cannot be applied in this case at this stage since the departmental proceeding has not yet been commenced fully save and except issuing of show cause notice and delivery of articles of charge. Learned Advocate General ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner had got no scope to approach this Court for the purported relief. [12] It has been further contended that while disposing of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge decided the matter under the mistaken belief that the alleged distortion occurred during the period when the petitioner held the post of Inspector of Taxes, though it is a pure question of fact requiring evidence. The learned Single Judge should have considered that during the pendency of any departmental proceeding, the Court does not have the jurisdiction to interfere with or examine its merits. In paragraph-13 of the judgment, the Court observed that the departmental proceeding had not fully commenced, only the memorandum and articles of charge had been served to the petitioner, and the inquiry authority was likely preparing to record witness statements shortly. [13] This observation indicates that the proceeding had already been initiated by the competent authority. Once a departmental proceeding has commenced, the Court is barred from assessing its merits. The learned Single Judge should have considered that a writ Court is not the appropriate forum for the petitioner to present defenses or clarific....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....04. Challenging the said assessment order, the dealer M/s M.P. Khaitan preferred revision petition after filing statutory deposit before the Commissioner of Taxes. The Commissioner of Taxes being the revisional authority vide order dated 19.02.2014 remanded the matter back to the Superintendent of Taxes, Charge-IV setting aside the assessment orders for the year 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 dated 22.08.2012 with a further direction to complete the reassessment within 30.04.2014. [17] Thereafter, another assessment order was passed on 28.03.2015 under Rule-21(3) of The Tripura Value Added Tax Rules (for short, TVAT Rules) by Mr. M. Sengupta, another Superintendent of Taxes, Charge-IV, Agartala in which assessment was made under Section-36 of the TVAT Act, 2004. In the said assessment order Section-36 was overwritten by ink and at the time of passing assessment order under Section-36 of the TVAT Act, 2004. It was also stated that in the second page of the assessment order Section-36 was also overwritten by ink by the assessing officer stating that the assessment was taken up under Section-36 of the TVAT Act, 2004. [18] Learned counsel thereafter drawn t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is suffering from mental agony and harassment for this reason. On bare perusal of both the assessment orders, it will be crystal clear that both the orders were passed by two different officers not by the present respondent but with an ulterior motive and on the basis of a fake communication submitted by one Sanjay Khaitan on behalf of M/s M.P. Khaitan to the Commissioner of Taxes on 09.04.2024, the respondent was given show-cause notice and later on he has been entangled with the departmental proceeding as stated above. Furthermore, referring to Annexure-8 i.e. the communication dated 21.03.2024, learned counsel drawn the attention of this Court that in para 3 of the said communication it is stated that they have not received any assessment order which was passed on 28.03.2015 but surprisingly at the time of passing assessment order the representative of the concerned dealer was present. So, how it can be agitated by them that no copy of order was served upon them or they had no knowledge. [21] Learned counsel has again drawn the attention of this Court referring the notice dated 13.03.2024issued by the Superintendent of State Tax, Charge-IV, Agartala wherein, it was specifical....