SAMIR GHOSH Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the review petition and the writ petition are being disposed of by a common judgment since identical questions of law and fact are involved.

(2.) SRI Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee -petitioner submits that there was an error apparent on the face of the record. According to him, entry No. 193 of Schedule II(b) of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as, "the TVAT Act") does not entitle the State Government to levy tax on each and every item and it cannot be read in the manner in which it has been interpreted by the learned Division Bench.

(3.) THEREAFTER the TST Act was amended by the State of Tripura and gravel was included in the Schedule as one of the items which could be taxed. The petitioner then filed another writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 114 of 2000 alleging therein that pea gavel and gravel were two separate items and as such not exigible to tax even after amendment.