ARRON BRICKS Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first petitioner, M/s. Arron Bricks, is a partnership firm and the second petitioner, Srimathi Pritha Datta is a partner. The other three partners are pro forma -respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7. The partnership firm was registered on November 6, 1986. The writ petition is, as a matter of fact, the exposition of the grievances of the second petitioner who received a notice on March 20, 1996 from the Superintendent of Taxes, the third respondent herein, asking her to attend the office of the respondent on March 23, 1996 in order to complete sales tax assessment of the said firm for seven years at a time commencing from 1988 -89 to 1994 -95. After receiving the said notice, she tried to contact with the other three partners, the pro forma -respondents herein, but failed. As her husband was seriously ill, she sent her agent to appear before the third respondent and made a prayer for time to submit her response. But without disposing of her prayer the said respondent hastily made assessment order under Section 9(4) of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 (for short, 'the Act') ex parte for the aforementioned seven years, though on August 29, 1991 the partnership firm was finally closed and, therefore, there could not be any reason for tax assessment during the period 1991 -92 to 1994 -95. She made an application on April 22, 1996 under Section 10 of the Act to cancel the ex parte assessment order whereby she was required to deposit Rs. 4,20,736. After receiving demand notice dated March 27, 1996 under Section 23 of the Act from the said respondent directing her to deposit the said amount of sales tax, she tired her best to contact again with other three partners but failed to locate them. In response to her prayer dated April 22, 1996 she was advised by the said respondent to file an appeal if she felt aggrieved with the order of assessment. Though Section 10 of the Act provides that a petition for cancellation of the assessment is maintainable and requires to be disposed of, the said respondent without taking any action on that petition instituted the certificate proceeding under Section 62 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Reforms Act for realisation of the amount of tax aforementioned. On September 9, 1996 she approached the respondent to realise from her only 25 per cent of the assessed tax as she was one of the four partners and, therefore, the rest part of the tax was to be realised from the other three partners. After receiving the notice of the certified proceeding, she made another attempt to contract with the other partners but again failed. On September 20, 1996 she issued Advocate's notice upon the said pro forma -respondents asking them to submit all necessary documents including books of account in order to do the needful for rectification for urging the third respondent to reassess the tax liability. But the Advocate's notice could evoke no response from the said pro forma -respondents. On November 7, 1996 she received a revised notice from the third respondent asking her to deposit the entire amount of tax so assessed absolving thus the other partners from payment of any part of the assessed tax. According to her she was liable to pay only l/4th of the tax and therefore, the revised notice slapping upon her the entire tax liability is illegal and arbitrary. On November 15, 1996 she issued another Advocate's notice urging the third respondent to stop the illegal proceeding for realisation of the entire amount of tax from her, but there was no action taken on the said notice. Thus, on the ground that the ex parte assessment of tax is bad in law and she is not liable to pay the entire tax assessed, she has approached this Court by means of the present writ proceeding.

(2.) THE State -respondents contested the writ petition contending, inter alia, 2 in the counter -affidavit that the petitioner -firm was duly given notice on July 30, 1991 for the years 1988 -89 to 1990 -91 and again on August 16, 1991, but there was no response from the petitioner. Similarly, on June 20, 1992 for the same period another notice was given fixing July 2, 1992 for assessment, which also cold evoke no response. On January 24, 1995 and January 7, 1996 notices were given to the petitioner for assessment of tax for the period 1988 -1995, but the petitioners refused to make any response. As the said firm did not submit return during all those years for assessment of tax, the assessing authority issued show cause notice on March 20, 1996 and thereafter proceeded to make assessment under Section 9(4) of the Act. Though the second petitioner made a prayer for extension of time on March 25, 1996, after the date of her appearance on March 23, 1996, her prayer was not considered as she was earlier given reasonable opportunity. It is further contended that the assessment for seven years had to be undertaken, as the assessment for all those years had been postponed for failure of the petitioners to submit returns. In response to her letter for cancellation of the assessment order, she was informed that an appeal would lie against the order of assessment, which she was at liberty to resort to. As regards liability of other partners, the contention is that they had ceased to be partners in 1988 when the second petitioner became the proprietor of the firm with effect from August 3, 1988 and due to that reason the entire liability of the firm had to be saddled with the second petitioner only.

(3.) THE relevant part of the said letter reads as follows: