DUNLOP INDIA LIMITED Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. S. C. Saha, the learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. A. Ghosh, the learned counsel representing the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner company, which is a dealer registered under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has filed separate writ petitions relating to different assessment years challenging the consolidated order of assessment dated 14. 03. 1995. The appellate order dated 19. 09. 1996 and the 2nd appellate order dated 11. 06. 1997 of the Tripura Sales Tax Tribunal upholding the said assessment order for the period 1988-89 to 1993-94 (six years) is also under challenge. The issue that needs to be decided by this Court is whether the impugned orders of assessment, whereby handling charge has been added to the tax liability of the dealer is sustainable in law?

(3.) APPEARING for the assessee, it has been submitted by Mr. S. C. Saha, the learned counsel that the dealer, in respect of the concerned years of assessment, has submitted his returns on time and it was incumbent on the Assessing Authority to make the assessment under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act at the close of the year of business and the Assessing Authority having made the assessment several years after the closure of business, was incompetent in law to make such belated assessment. Mr. Saha has further argued that the dealer, for the concerned period, had charged the sale price of the goods and in addition to the said sale price, a handling charge @10% has also been charged from the purchasers. But the said handling charge is levied in order to reach the goods to the purchasers and is not a part of the consideration or the sale price for the goods sold. On the basis of such contention, it is argued that the adding of handling charge to the sale price for the purpose of assessment is not authorized by law. The imposition of penalty under the provisions of Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act has been assailed by Mr. Saha by stating that such imposition can be made by the authority only after making an assessment and determining tax liability of the dealer and penalty cannot be imposed simultaneously at the time of assessment of a dealer. The levy of interest is also challenged on the ground that the authorities for their own fault did not make the assessment within a reasonable time after closure of the business of a year as required by Section 9 of the Act and accordingly, interest liability should not have been fastened on the assessee.