MONORANJAN CHAKRABORTY Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in this batch of writ petitions have challenged the vires of the "first two provisos" to section 20 and the "proviso" to section 21 of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), as amended by the Tripura Sales Tax (Third Amendment) Act, 1984 (hereinafter the "1984 Amendment Act" ). Though the facts in different writ petitions are slightly different, as the question of law that arises for consideration is the same, all these writ petitions were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) THE relevant facts common to all these petitions, briefly stated, are as follows : The petitioners are registered dealers under the Act. They have been assessed by the Superintendent of Taxes, who is the assessing authority under the Act, in respect of their turnover for different return periods and taxes payable determined on the basis thereof. While making the assessments, the Superintendent of Taxes did not accept the turnover disclosed by them in their returns or account books and estimated the same at much higher figures. As a result, in each assessment, tax much in excess of what was payable according to the dealer, was determined as payable and demand was raised in respect thereof. In some cases, penalty had also been levied in addition to tax.

(3.) BEFORE dealing with the various contentions of the parties, we may refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 20 of the Act provides for an appeal against an order of assessment or penalty passed under the Act. This section was amended by the 1984 Amendment Act with effect from July 1, 1984. Originally, the relevant portion of section 20 (1) stood in the following terms :