Tripura High Court

Tripura Electricals vs The State Of Tripura & Others on 22 May, 2024

Author: Arindam Lodh

Bench: Arindam Lodh

                                         Page 1 of 2




                           HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                 AGARTALA
                                WP(C) No.177 of 2023
Tripura Electricals
                                                                         .........Petitioner(s);
                                           Versus
The State of Tripura & others
                                                                      .........Respondent(s).

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.N. Majumder, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Rajib Saha, Advocate, Mr. B. Paul, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharyya, G.A., Mr. Tapash Kumar Deb, Advocate.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH

Order 22/05/2024

The writ petition was preferred with the following prayers:

"(i) Issue RULE NISI;

(ii) Issue Rule calling upon the respondents and each one of them to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued, mandating/directing/commanding the respondent authorities to issue „Form-C‟ as required under the CST Act, in favour of the petitioner firm in terms of the judgment passed by this Hon‟ble High Court on 19.04.2021, in Case No. W.P.(C) 1745 of 2017;

(iii) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari calling of records pertaining to application dated 27.04.2016 and 16.08.2017, submitted by the petitioner firm praying for issuance of Form-„C‟ under CST Act, from the office of the respondent authority No.3;

(iv) Issue rule calling upon the respondent and or each one of them to show cause as to why any other appropriate Writ shall not be issued directing the respondents to give complete relief to the petitioner;

(v) Pass such other order/orders as this Hon‟ble Court deems fit;

(vi) After hearing the parties be pleased to make the Rule absolute in terms of (i) above;"

2. The request of the petitioners for amendment in the registration

certificate upon death of the original proprietor, the registered dealer Kalyan

Prasad Saha who passed away on 13.03.2014, has not been acceded to by the

respondents. They have also defended their action by filing a Counter Affidavit.

3. Mr. Rajib Saha, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits on

instructions that the selling dealer has by this time realized the tax dues at the

prescribed normal rate. Because of non-issuance of Form-„C‟, petitioners, who

are the successors of Lt. Kalyan Prasad Saha, could not avail concessional rate

of tax for inter-state sale in terms of the CST Act. Therefore, learned counsel

for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition. However, he

seeks liberty to approach the competent authority in relation to the grievances

of the petitioners.

4. Though we are of the view that at this point of time a claim

relating to concessional rate of tax under CST Act for the assessment year

2015-16 and 2016-17 may not be open when the taxes on the prescribed normal

rate has been realized, we leave it to the petitioners to pursue their remedy if it

is permissible in law before the appropriate forum.

5. The instant writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn with the

aforesaid liberty.

(ARINDAM LODH), J                                       (APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ




MUNNA SAHA Digitally signed by MUNNA SAHA
           Date: 2024.05.24 17:20:59 +05'30'




Pijush/