KINKAR DEB Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this writ petition are very brief but the questions of law that arise for consideration are important and interesting. We state the facts first. The petitioner, Kinkar Deb, is a small business-man who occasionally deals with lottery tickets. On September 18, 1986, he came from Calcutta to Agartala by Indian Airlines flight. He brought with him lottery tickets numbering 50,000, the face value of which was Rs. 50,000. The moment he landed at Agartala and entered the airport lounge, the officials of the sales tax department of the Government of Tripura, intercepted him and checked his baggage and found the aforesaid lottery tickets in his brief-case and bag. The petitioner told the tax officials that he was bound for Silchar in the State of Assam but having failed to manage air ticket, he landed at Agartala and decided to go to Silchar by road-ways. He also stated that he had no intention to sell the lottery tickets in Tripura. The Superintendent of Taxes, however, did not accept this statement and seized the lottery tickets, vide seizure list dated September 18, 1986. The seizure was made for the alleged contravention of the provisions of section 37 (1) of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976, hereinafter "the Act". The very next day, on September 19, 1986, the Superintendent of Taxes passed an order whereby the alleged offence of import of lottery tickets through Indian Airlines of September 18, 1986, under section 37 (1) of the Act committed by the petitioner was compounded by him. It was done in lieu of taking action under section 29 of the Act. The sale value of the lottery tickets was computed at Rs. 50,000; tax payable at 20 per cent was determined at Rs. 10,000; composition money amounting to Rs. 20,000 was added thereto, and the petitioner was directed to deposit the said sum of Rs. 30,000 immediately. As this order is the subject-matter of challenge, and most of the contentions of the petitioner are based on the statements in this order, it is reproduced below :

(2.) BY another order passed on the very next day, i. e. , on September 20, 1986, the date of payment was extended to September 22, 1986. The petitioner did not deposit the tax and composition money demanded by the Superintendent of Taxes. On the other hand, he preferred a revision petition before the Commissioner of Taxes on the ground that the seizure of the lottery tickets by order dated September 18, 1986 and the composition made by order dated September 19, 1986, by the Superintendent of Taxes, were illegal and without jurisdiction. It was contended, inter alia, that the composition was made by the Superintendent without the consent of the petitioner which was not in accordance with law. It was further contended that even if it was found that an offence had been committed under section 37 (1) of the Act, the maximum amount that could have been payable by way of composition money was Rs. 1,000 and not Rs. 20,000 as levied by the Superintendent of Taxes. A prayer was also made for release of the seized lottery tickets on the ground that they were perishable in nature as after expiry of the date of the draw, they would lose all their value. In that view of the matter, the Commissioner, by interim order dated September 22, 1986, directed release of the seized lottery tickets on furnishing a cash security of Rs. 30,000 by the petitioner. The petitioner deposited the same and got the lottery tickets released. Later, the Commissioner by order dated November 20, 1986, rejected the contentions of the petitioner and dismissed the revision petition. The Commissioner found that the petitioner opted for composition, but having found the amount calculated by the Superintendent of Taxes to be high, declined to compound. The Commissioner, however, was of the opinion that in such a situation, the Superintendent of Taxes was justified in passing the order of composition and enforcing payment thereof. It was held that the composition money had been calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Act and that the petitioner was legally bound to comply with the said composition order and to pay the tax and composition money amounting to Rs. 30,000 as determined by the Superintendent of Taxes. He, therefore, directed that the cash security furnished by the petitioner in terms of the interim order dated September 22, 1986, should be deemed to be composition money deposited by the petitioner for composition of the offence as per the order of the Superintendent of Taxes September 19, 1986. The Commissioner also held that in view of the aforesaid order passed by him the offence committed by the petitioner was deemed to be compounded as per the provisions of section 32 (2) of the Act. The revision petition was, therefore, dismissed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Commissioner, the petitioner has moved this Court by filing the present writ petition.

(3.) BEFORE we proceed to examine the same, it will be expedient to refer to the relevant provisions of law. We may first deal with the provisions relating to composition. Section 32 of the Act which provides for composition of offences reads as follows :