Tripura High Court
Mr. B N Majudmer vs Mr. A Nandi on 29 November, 2021
Page - 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.628/2020
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B N Majudmer, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. S C Sen, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. A Nandi, Advocate.
Golden Logistics.
............ Petitioner(s).
- Vs. -
The State of Tripura and Ors.
............ Respondent(s).
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY
HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. S G CHATTOPADHYAY
_O_R_D_E_ R_
29/11/2021
(Indrajit Mahanty, CJ).
Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case is
covered by a judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in WP(C)
No.317/2020 dated 7th January 2021 where this Court came to the following
conclusions :
"[9] Having appreciated the rival contentions, we are satisfied that the
breach definitely falls within the ambit of Section 122(xiv) of the
CGST Act and as such the petitioner is excisable to the penalty. But
the pertinent question that falls for consideration is whether the
Superintendent of State Tax has exceeded his jurisdiction in imposing
the penalty? Having read the provisions of imposing penalty as
provided under Section 122 of the CGST Act, we are of the view for
Page - 2 of 3
the breach which falls under Section 122(xiv), the penalty is fixed
@Rs.10,000/-. So far the penalty for an amount equivalent to tax is
concerned those are for the incidents when the tax is sought to be
evaded or not deducted under Section 51 etc. The other incidences as
cataloged in Section 122 of the CGST Act are not relevant to the
present case and as such we are of the firm view that the
Superintendent of State Tax has exceeded his jurisdiction while
imposing the penalty. The penalty would have been Rs.10,000/-. As
there is no dispute about the tax, we will not lay our hands on that
aspect. Mr. Majumder has categorically stated that the petitioner has
paid the said tax. We are also not accepting that statement on the face
of it. The revenue authority shall be at liberty to verify that fact to
ascertain whether tax has been paid or not. In the event of non-
payment of tax the appropriate action be taken for realizing the said
tax from the petitioner. But in the circumstances, we set aside the
order of penalty and direct the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs.
10,000/- as penalty for the breach which is covered under Section
122(xiv) of the CGST Act within a period of 1 month from today. If
not paid, the action as prescribed by the statue be followed for
realizing the same.
In the result, this petition stands partly allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs."
Mr. A Nandi, learned counsel appearing for the State, fairly admits
that this matter is covered by the judgment relied on by the petitioner.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in terms with the directions issued
in the connected matter as noted herein above.
Page - 3 of 3
It is further clarified that since the penalty amount has been
confined under the said rules to Rs.10,000/- by the earlier Division Bench of
this Court in the above mentioned case, any amount paid in excess of the
said amount be refunded in favour of the petitioner within a period of four
weeks from today and if there is any delay beyond four weeks the same shall
carry 7.5% interest per annum.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
( S G CHATTOPADHYAY, J ) ( INDRAJIT MAHANTY, CJ )
Sukhendu
