INDRAJIT MAHANTY, J. - (1.)Heard Mr. Biplabedu Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also heard Mr. Asish Nandi, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents.
(2.)Challenge has been made in the present petition to an order passed by the Tribunal under Sec. 71 of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (TVAT Act, 2004 for short). It appears that the petitioner had moved an appeal under Sec. 71 of the TVAT Act and against an order passed by the Revisional Authority dtd. 21/6/2018 and against order passed under Sec. 31(1) of the TVAT Act by the assessing officer. On perusal of the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, it appears that the Tribunal has partly allowed the appeal inasmuch as set aside the levy of penalty under Sec. 25(4) of the TVAT Act and thereafter found no further reason to interfere with the order of the Revisional Authority.
(3.)It would be pertinent to note herein that the Revisional Authority i.e. the Commissioner of Taxes had set aside the order of assessment and had directed the Superintendent of Taxes, Charge-Bishalgarh (Assessing Authority) to make re-assessment after careful examination of the dealer's books of accounts along with DTR on which the question arise by the dealer.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the present case highlighted the fact that the Tribunal had taken into consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Tripura in case of Swapan Kumar Saha versus State of Tripura and others in WP(C) No.235 of 2011 and had extracted Sec. 5(2) of the TVAT Act. Thereafter, the Court was of the opinion that the submission of the petitioner in this regard contains no merit and is liable to be rejected. The objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has no objection to the re-assessment that may be carried out against the dealer for the assessment years in question, however, the findings of the Tribunal to the effect that the petitioner's contention had been rejected to that extent may be deleted.

;