PANKAJ BEHARI SAHA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions ariseout of common background.They have been heard together and would be disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Facts being similar, we may notice from WP(C) 1109/2019.

(3.) Petitioner is an individual and is engaged in the business of operating a bonded ware house at Udaipur, Tripura. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (TVAT Act, for short). For the assessment period 2010-11 to 2012-13 the petitioner had filed necessary returns under the TVAT Act. It appears that notices for audit assessments in relation to such returns were issued, however, no final orders of assessment werepassed before the period of limitation prescribed under the Act. In other words, these assessments became time barred.