SAMIR GHOSH Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order relates to an interim prayer made by the writ petitioner of WP(C) No. 114 of 2000 for issue of necessary direction calling upon the respondents No. 1 to 3 not to charge any tax under the Tripura Sales Tax Act on the supply of Pea-Gravels by the petitioner to the respondent No. 4, the Executive Engineer, in execution of a supply agreement and also to direct the said respondents to release Pea-Gravels of the petitioner detained at Churaibari Sales Tax Check Post.

(2.) It would appear from the provisions of Rules 45,46 and 47 of the Tripura Sales Tax Rules, 1976 that an importer of any taxable goods to the State of Tripura is required to make a declaration in Form-XVin in triplicate and a copy thereof .will be sent by the Superintendent of Taxes to the Check Post/Gate for the purpose of allowing the goods to be brought to the State of Tripura. In the instant case, the writ petitioner did not make such a declaration and, as a consequence, the officer-in-charge of Churaibari Check Post detained four trucks carrying Pea-Gravels as per contract referred to above. This Rule has been framed in exercise of the Rule making power of the State Govt. for the purpose of so effective implementation of the provisions of Section 37 and 38 of the Act. There is no challenge to the legality and validity of the aforesaid provisions of law and, therefore, every person including a registered dealer will have to comply with the above requirement of law.

(3.) Sri A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel for lite petitioner has submitted that Pea-Gravel iis not a taxable item as per provision of the Act and, as such, the petitioner is not required to make any declaration as provided in Rule 45 to 47. Elaborating his contention, Sri Bhowmik has submitted that the word 'Gravel' has been made a chargeable commodity after amendment of the Act with effect from 8.2.2000. His grievance is that the word 'Gravel' cannot be interpreted so as to include pea-gravel in order to make it chargeable to sales tax. In support of his contention, Mr. Bhowmik has also referred to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Shri Chitta Ranjan Saha, Petitioner Vs The State of Tripura and others, Respondents (1989) 2 GLR 101.