Case Law Details
Pankaj Behari Saha Vs State of Tripura (Tripura High Court)
Analysis of Section 53 of the TVAT Act would show that as per sub-section (1) thereof, for a dealer whose turnover crosses the prescribed threshold limit for any year, has to get his accounts audited within six months from the end of that year and obtained the report in the prescribed form setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed. Such report has to be furnished to the Commissioner by the end of the month after expiry of the period of six months allowed for completing the audit. It is when the dealer fails to do this, that under sub-section (3) of Section 53 he exposes himself to penalty at the prescribed rate. In order to invoke the penal provision of sub-section (3) of Section 53 thus it must be first established that the dealer failed to get his accounts audited as provided in sub-section (1) and furnish a copy thereof within prescribed time as provided in sub-section (2) of Section 53. Under sub‑section (1) of Section 53 what the dealer is required to do is to obtain a report of audit in prescribed form and which would set forth such particulars as may be prescribed. Thus for a dealer to obtain an audit report, not only the format in which such report would be obtained, the particulars which such report must contain, were also the matters to be prescribed. As provided in sub-section (19) of Section 2 such prescription has to be made under the Rules. Admittedly, in the present case, in the Rules framed by the State Legislature in exercise of rule making powers under the TVAT Act, no such form was prescribed nor obviously the particulars which such report would contain were prescribed. In absence of any such prescription, the Superintendent could not have invoked the provision of sub-section (3) of Section 53 of the TVAT Act. Since as noted, under the Rules neither the form of audit report nor the particulars which such audit report would contain having been prescribed, the question of the dealer having failed to furnish the report would not arise.
The court held that when the Statute provides certain things to be done in a particular manner, the same must be done in that manner or not at all.The Court rejected the contention of the State that the report ought to have been submitted in the form prescribed under the Chartered Accountants Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER of TRIPURA HIGH COURT
These petitions arise in common background. They have been heard together and would be disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience, we may record facts from WP(C) No.1106 of 2019.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
