Tripura High Court
Mrs. S Deb(Gupta) vs Mr. K De on 17 May, 2021
Bench: Akil Kureshi, S G Chattopadhyay
Page - 1 of 2
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
CRP No.39/2021
For Petitioner(s) : Mrs. S Deb(Gupta), Advocate,
Ms. S Nandy, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K De, Addl. Govt. Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. S G CHATTOPADHYAY _O_R_D_E_ R_ 17/5/2021 (Akil Kureshi, CJ).
The petitioner is a dealer registered under Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2005. Against the order of assessment passed by the Superintendent of Taxes, he had filed a revision petition before the Commissioner. Such revision petition came to be dismissed, on 7th November 2013, by the Commissioner on the ground that neither the assessee nor his advocate was present. The petitioner filed an application before the Commissioner, on 1st January 2014, requesting for restoration of the revision petition. Learned counsel Mrs. S Deb(Gupta) drew our attention to a copy of such restoration application which carries an endorsement of the department that the same was received on 1 st January, 2014. She submitted that this application was not decided by the Commissioner for a long time and therefore, the petitioner filed a fresh application for restoration on 24th March 2021 in which, inadvertently, the petitioner had stated that he had previously not received the copy of the Page - 2 of 2 order of the Commissioner dismissing his revision petition in default. The Commissioner dismissed the application for restoration by impugned order dated 9th April, 2021.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had made out good grounds for restoration of the revision petition. In any case, the Commissioner did not have power to dismiss the revision petition of the petitioner in default. Even if there was no representation of the petitioner, the Commissioner ought to have decided the revision petition on merits on the basis of documents on record. She further stated that at the time of filing of the revision petition, the petitioner had deposited 50% of the disputed tax dues as required under the statute. The VAT authorities are pressing hard for the recovery of remaining dues of the petitioner arising out of the order of assessment.
Notice, returnable for 21st June, 2021.
By way of ad-interim relief, further coercive recoveries arising out of assessment order dated 7th November, 2013 shall not be carried out.
Learned Additional Government Advocate, Mr. K De, waived notice on behalf of the State-respondents.
( S G CHATTOPADHYAY, J ) ( AKIL KURESHI, CJ ) Sukhendu