ELECTRIC HOUSE Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three writ petitions under article 226 of the Constitution have been filed against the impugned orders dated November 25,1995 and November 27,1995 passed by the Commissioner of Taxes, Government of Tripura, Agartala, in revision case No. 7/Charge -III/95, in revision case No. 8/Charge -III/95 and in revision case No. 9/Charge -III/95, respectively, in connection with the impugned order of assessment dated March 31, 1995 passed by the Superintendent of Taxes, Charge III, Government of Tripura, Agartala (annexure A) creating a demand of Rs. 77,582.20 for the assessment year 1986 -87, Rs. 86,813.91 for the assessment year 1987 -88 and Rs. 1,43,910.56 for the assessment year 1988 -89. Since these cases are all identical and issues involved are same, all these three petitions are taken up for hearing and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The petitioner, namely, Electric House, Central Road, Agartala, is registered sales tax dealer under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 (for short, "the Act of 1976") vide registration certificate No. SDR/ST/03210/76 and deals its business in agripump sets and its parts, accessories, equipment, tools, machinery parts and accessories, and electrical goods which are taxable at different rates under the Act of 1976. According to the petitioner -dealer, he had sold out the taxable items and had shown its turnover for different years, namely, for the assessment years 1986 -87, 1987 -88, 1988 -89, and had deposited sales tax on the taxable turnover at different rates after taking benefits of form C issued to him for different years. But after examining the books of account for different years, the assessing officer, i.e., the Superintendent of Taxes, Charge -III, Agartala vide his order dated March 31, 1995 has passed the assessment orders under Sec. 9(3) of the Act of 1976 enhancing the taxable total turnover for the assessment years 1986 -87, 1987 -88 and 1988 -89 and creating extra demand of sales tax and interest payable thereon for these three consecutive years on the ground that the turnover returned does not tally with the sales shown in the ledger account by the petitioner. Thereafter, an application under Sec. 21(2) of the Act of 1976 has been filed before the Commissioner of Taxes, who is the revisional authority, Government of Tripura, Agartala, in respect of the above three assessment orders. While disposing of the revision petitions, the revisional authority, i.e., the Commissioner of Taxes, has noted in his order that the petitioner had not maintained the books of account like cash book, ledger, sale register, purchase register, etc., properly and also held that the dealer could not produce the actual figures of purchase and sale, also the opening and closing stock for the purpose of assessment. The petitioner -dealer was given opportunity to reconcile the turnover returned with the sales registers and the trading account figure, but he could not do the same. Under these circumstances, the Commissioner of Taxes has noted that the assessing authority had rightly enhanced the taxable turnover and had rightly rejected the account books, etc., by passing his best judgment assessment order. The Commissioner has also noted that the works contracts were also not explained properly and material was also taken as sale -supply of taxable goods. The Commissioner has further noted that the assessment orders were passed at the last stage after several years and has also acknowledged that the demands of sales tax on enhanced turnover as well as that of interest thereon were genuine. The Commissioner has analysed the assessment order and has found that at different heads and items, the assessment orders were justifiable.

(3.) Against the assessment order dated March 31,1995 passed in reference to the assessment year 1988 -89, the petitioner preferred revision under Sec. 21(2) of the Act of 1976, but did not deposit the statutory amount necessary for entertaining the revision petition. Therefore, for lack of not depositing the statutory amount, the Commissioner has not entertained the revision petition and rejected the same.