Case Law Details
Gemini Distilleries (Tripura) Pvt. Ltd Vs State of Tripura (Tripur High Court)
It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s turnover was above Rs. 40 lakhs, and the accounts were to be audited in terms of Section 53 of the TVAT Act, 2004, but it is the contention of the petitioner that in the absence of a prescribed format as per Section 53(1) of the Act, 2004, the petitioner could not be made liable for penalty on failure to submit the audited report within the prescribed time. Reliance is placed on a decision of this court in WP(C) 1106 of 2019 and other analogous writ petitions of the same petitioners [Pankaj Behari Saha vs. State of Tripura & ors] vide judgment dated 26.04.2021. The other ground urged by learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner is absence of notice before imposition of penalty which is in teeth of the provisions of Section 53(3) of the Act, 2004, and in violation of principles of natural justice as well.
HC held that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner for violation of Section 53(1) of the TVAT Act, 2004 suffers from lack of proper notice and absence of reasonable opportunity of being heard, as is required under Section 53(3) of the Act, 2004. A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the proceedings were initiated under Section 31(1) of the TVAT Act, 2004, but no separate notice was issued under section 53(1) of the Act, 2004 before imposition of penalty.
As such, without going into the other issue of absence of prescribed format for submission of audited return in terms of Section 53(1) of the Act, 2004, the impugned penalty imposed upon the petitioner amounting to Rs. 2,73,800.30 vide order dated 30.03.2022 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) is quashed. However, it is made clear that except the penalty part, the rest of the assessment order remains intact.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TRIPURA HIGH COURT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
