Case Law Details
Pankaj Behari Saha Vs State of Tripura (Tripura High Court)
Issue- Legality and validity of Notification dated 04.06.2018 issued by the Commissioner of Taxes, Government of Tripura in the purported exercise of powers under Section 85 of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 delegating the powers of the Commissioner of Taxes under Section 31 of the Act to all the Superintendent of taxes posted in Tax Audit Cell to be exercised within the State of Tripura with effect from 31.03.2018.
Held by High Court
A reading of Section 28 and Rule 45 clearly indicates that role of the audit & assessment authorities under the Act are different. The powers of assessment under the statute are not vested on the audit cell. And in the absence of such, commissioner cannot delegate. The powers of commissioner under section 31 has been delegated to the Superintendent of Taxes by notification dated 01.04.2006 and also the Superintendent of Taxes posted in tax audit cell by notification dated 04.06.2018.
It is pertinent to note that the powers delegated under notification dated 01.04.2006 upon the Superintendent of Taxes and powers delegated by notification dated 04.06.2018 upon all the Superintendent of Taxes posted in Tax Audit Cell are altogether different. As stated (supra) audit, assessment & collection are three different functions. Collection of penalty under Section 31 (5)(d) unless it is audited and assessment is made, it cannot be construed that the Assessee is liable to pay penalty and as well as interest upon the tax amount.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
