TARA BHUSAN SAHA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment since identical questions of law arise. Two writ petitions have been filed in respect of two separate assessment years. In W.P. (C) No. 442 of 2006, the assessment year is 2003 -04 whereas in W.P. (C) No. 443 of 2006, the assessment year is 2002 -03. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner is a registered dealer under the Tripura Purchase Tax Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The petitioner purchases raw rubber goods and rubber scrap from the growers. The petitioner also maintains books of account. The petitioner had paid purchase tax as per these books of account. The assessing officer did not rely upon the books of account and the reason given by the assessing officer is as follows:

(2.) THEREFORE , the assessing authority did not accept the accounts of the dealer and assessed the purchase price of raw rubber at higher rates. The petitioner in his accounts had shown the average rate of raw rubber sheets at Rs. 25 per kilogram for the years 2002 -03 and 2003 -04 and Rs. 56 per kilogram for the year 2004 -05. The scrap rate was shown at Rs. 12 per kilogram for the years 2002 -03 and 2003 -04 and Rs. 30 per kilogram for the year 2004 -05. The assessing officer did not accept the rates for the years 2002 -03 and 2003 -04 but accepted the rates given for the year 2003 -04. For the year 2002 -03, the assessing officer assessed the rate of rubber sheets at Rs. 36 per kilogram and rubber scrap at Rs. 17 per kilogram. For the assessment year 2003 -04, the rate of rubber sheet was assessed at Rs. 50 per kilogram and the rate of rubber scrap at Rs. 20 per kilogram.

(3.) THEREAFTER , the petitioner filed revision petition which has been rejected by the Commissioner of Taxes on the ground that since the Tripura Forest Development and Plantation Corporation (TFDPC) is a non -profit organization working for welfare of rubber producer, their rate for rubber product was relevant and directed that the sale price be determined by the assessing officer on set norms. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows: