PURBANCHAL DEVP CORPORATION Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the facts in controversy and reliefs sought for in the aforesaid three cases are admittedly identical in nature and where the parties are also same, it is proposed to dispose of all the aforesaid three cases by this common judgment. However, for better appreciation, factual aspects of the aforesaid three cases are briefly narrated as under: I. CIVIL RULE NO. 123 OF 1994 The petitioner being a registered dealer unnished his return in due time for the assessment year 198485, but the authority, respondent No.4 took up the assessment after two years and vide order dated 30.5.1987 made the assessment calculating higher amount of turnover and imposed a tax to the tune of Rs.28,886.20P and penalty of Rs.5,777.24P although the petitioner furnished his return showing the turn over of Rs. 1,24,871/ and paid the sales tax on that amount accordingly. The assessing authority adopted the 'best judgment assessment' procedure. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred appeal and subsequently revision, but of no use. Hence he filed this case. The respondents raised the same plea, identical to the first case (Civil Rule No. 123/94). III. CIVIL RULE NO. 125 OF 1994 For the assessment year 198586 the petitioner furnished the return in due time showing the turn over of Rs. 1,05,000/ and the return was accompanied by the treasury challan showing payment of sales tax on the said amount, but the assessing authority after one year took up the matter of assessment and vide impugned order dated 30.5.1987 assessed the turnover of the petitioner's business at Rs. 11,17,556/ and assessed the tax at Rs. 1,11,755/ and imposed a penalty of Rs.22,351.12P. The petitioner preferred appeal followed by revision, but got no relief. Hence he filed this case. The respondents took the plea identical to the first case (Civil Rule No. 123 of 1994).

(2.) Heard Mr. S.C. Saha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. U.B. Saha, learned Senior Govt. Advocate being assisted by Mr. A. Ghosh, learned counsel for the respondents.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the rival averments available in the respective pleadings of the parties, the following points have emerged for decision :