Heard Mr. S. M. Chakraborty, learned A.G. assisted by Mr. D.
Sarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the petitioners also heard Mr. A.
Bhaumik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
[2] This is an appeal filed under Chapter-VIII Rule-B (A) of the High
Court of Tripura Rules, 2023, preferred against the impugned judgment and order
dated 06.08.2025 passed in WP(C) No.726 of 2024 by the learned Single Judge.
b) Pass order setting aside the judgment & order dated 06.08.2025 passed by
the Hon'ble Single Judge in WP(C) No.726 of 2024.
c) Pass order staying the operation of the judgment & order dated 06.08.2025
passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in WP(C) No.726 of 2024.
d) Pass any other order or orders as deem fit and proper having regard to the
facts & circumstances of the case."
[4] The facts in brief are that the an assessment order had been passed in
respect to the dealer, M.P. Khaitan, by the Superintendent of Taxes, Charge-IV,
Agartala. However, the dealer dissatisfied with the assessment order and filed a
Revision petition before the Revisional Authority under the Tripura Value Added
Tax Act, 2004. Along with the revision petition, the dealer deposited the required
amount i.e. Rs.2,00,06,981/- as required for filing Revision petition. After hearing
the parties, the Revisional Authority, i.e., the Commissioner of Taxes, issued order
in Revision Case No. 01 to 06/Ch-IV/2013 on 07.02.2014. The Authority directed
the Superintendent of Taxes, Charge IV, Agartala, to conduct a fresh assessment
for the disputed years, i.e., 2006-07 to 2011-12, within a specified period.On
28.03.2015 an order with heading "Assessment Order" was passed by the
Superintendent of Taxes, Charge-IV, Agartala only in respect to the year 2006-07
and copy was served to the dealer M.P.Khaitan.
[5] In 2023, following the dealer's application, a refund was initiated by
the process Superintendent of Taxes, Charge-IV, Agartala. This process involved
deducting of Rs. 30,67,168/- which was raised by order dated 13.03.2015 of the
Superintendent of Taxes, Charge-IV, Agartala, pertaining to the year 2006-07. In
March 2024, the Superintendent of Taxes, Charge-IV, Agartala issued a notice,
requesting payment of Rs.47,38,775/- as interest owed. This amount was connected
to a previous demand of Rs.30,67,168/- raised for the year 2006-07 by the same
authority through an order dated 28.03.2015, under Section-36 of the Tripura Value
Added Tax Act, 2004. Upon receiving the notice, the dealer obtained a copy of the
aforementioned order from the Superintendent of Taxes, Charge-IV, Agartala. On
09.04.2024 the dealer namely M.P.Khaitan made an application before the
Commissioner of Taxes, Government of Tripura with a subject heading of "willful
distortion of public records by the Superintendent of Taxes, Charge-IV, Agartala."
[6] By this letter, it is assailed that the dealer have been provided a
mutilated copy of the assessment order dated 28.03.2015, in which the tempering
has been made in the letter '36' in the place of '31', specifically, it has been noted
that the number '36' appears in place of '31', suggesting an alteration or tampering
of the original document. In support of this claim, the dealer has submitted an
undamaged copy of the same assessment order, dated 28.03.2015, in which no such
tampering or overwriting is present. It is important to state here that the impact of
exercising power in this case under section 31 and 36 would be different, for this
reason such tempering affects immensely to the authority.
[7] Immediately, the Commissioner of Taxes issued an order to conduct
an enquiry, and the report in respect to that enquiry was submitted on 30.04.2024.
The report indicted four officials, namely, Sri Suman Das, Superintendent of
Taxes, Charge-IV, Agartala; Sri Amal Krishana Bhowmik and Sri Sudeb Chandra
Bhowmik, both inspectors of Taxes of that Charge and Sri Haripada Ray, Assistant
Commissioner of Taxes, posted at Agartala Kar Bhawan and in charge of that
establishment under the Department of Taxes, Government of Tripura involved in
the process of distortion. Thereafter, show-cause notice was issued and after
receiving reply, authority issued suspension order; afterward Disciplinary
Proceeding was initiated against the earring officials including the writ petitioner,
the respondent herein.
[8] At this stage, there remains no reason for taking inference that the
distortion took place before the year 2017, when the writ petitioner was in the post
of Inspector of Taxes. The entire issue is to be examined by the process of
departmental proceeding. After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge
allowed the writ petition and observed as under:
"14.2. I have perused the said citations of the Hon'ble Apex Court. There is no
dispute on record that excepting very rare and exceptional cases there is no
scope to interfere with the departmental proceeding. The citations referred by
Learned Advocate General at the time of hearing are no doubt very much
relevant but those citations cannot be applied in this case at this stage since the
departmental proceeding has not yet been commenced fully save and except
issuing of show cause notice and delivery of articles of charge. Learned
Advocate General also submitted that there is no scope to exercise the writ
jurisdiction at this stage but it appears to this Court that Learned Advocate
General could not place any satisfactory argument/defense to refute the
submission made by Learned Counsel for the petitioner and it appears to this
Court that this is a very exceptional case where this Court can exercise the
power of writ jurisdiction to grant relief to the petitioner.
15. In view of the above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and
thus, disposed of.
The order of suspension dated 26.07.2024 and the subsequent order dated
23.10.2024 are accordingly stands revoked. The consequential memo dated
07.09.2024 issued by the respondent authority also stands set aside and
quashed."
[9] Having been contrary on this point, the appellant-State has preferred
this writ appeal against the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.
[10] Mr. S. M. Chakraborty, learned A.G. assisted by Mr. D. Sarma,
learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the appellants has submitted that the learned
Single Judge should have dismissed the writ petition for want of any lawful cause
of action. The learned Single Judge should not have allowed the writ petition on
merits as the writ petition is premature in the face of it and frivolous in absence of
any impugned order. The learned Single Judge can interfere with a departmental
proceeding only when there is statutory violation but at this stage, since the
departmental proceeding has already been initiated and is still pending for disposal,
the present petitioner was having the liberty or scope to substantiate his contention
before the inquiring authority as referred in the writ petition. By filing the writ
petition, the petitioner cannot curtail the authority of the disciplinary authority to
proceed with the proceeding on the basis of the charge already framed.
[11] It is not the case of the petitioner that no scope was given to him and
it is also not the case of the petitioner, the respondent herein, that the departmental
proceeding was initiated by an incompetent person. There was also no allegation on
the part of the petitioner that the proceeding is contemplated by appointing an
inquiring authority who is incompetent to proceed with the matter. The order of
suspension is an appealable order, so without approaching to the appellate forum
the petitioner had got no scope to approach this Court for the purported relief.
[12] It has been further contended that while disposing of the writ petition,
the learned Single Judge decided the matter under the mistaken belief that the
alleged distortion occurred during the period when the petitioner held the post of
Inspector of Taxes, though it is a pure question of fact requiring evidence. The
learned Single Judge should have considered that during the pendency of any
departmental proceeding, the Court does not have the jurisdiction to interfere with
or examine its merits. In paragraph-13 of the judgment, the Court observed that the
departmental proceeding had not fully commenced, only the memorandum and
articles of charge had been served to the petitioner, and the inquiry authority was
likely preparing to record witness statements shortly.
[13] This observation indicates that the proceeding had already been
initiated by the competent authority. Once a departmental proceeding has
commenced, the Court is barred from assessing its merits. The learned Single Judge
should have considered that a writ Court is not the appropriate forum for the
petitioner to present defenses or clarifications regarding the charges leveled against
him. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the respondent authority
following the thorough examination of the facts. There is no factual basis for the
conclusion that he distortion occurred during the petitioner's tenure as Inspector of
Taxed, especially when the internal inquiry report implicated the petitioner along
with other officials.
[14] Learned Advocate General again submitted that at this stage there is
no scope to entertain the writ petition filed by the petitioner, the respondent herein.
It was submitted that since the departmental proceeding is still pending for
adjudication before the inquiring authority so, the questions as raised by the
respondent may be well placed to the respective inquiring authority and if
thereafter, the respondent feels to be dissatisfied with the order of the inquiring
authority in that case scope shall be there to the respondent to approach this Court.
[15] Mr. Bhaumik appearing on behalf of the respondent has first of all
drawn the attention of this Court referring Annexure-13 to the writ petition i.e. the
memo dated 07.09.2024 issued by the Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of
Tripura (Disciplinary Authority) wherein it was informed that the disciplinary
authority intended to conduct an inquiry against the petitioner under Rule-14 of the
CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 enclosing statement of articles of charge against the
respondent and submitted that on perusal of articles of charge it can be found that
no separate articles of charge was formulated by the disciplinary authority against
the respondent excepting a detailed canvass of the allegation set forth by the
prosecution-State. In the articles of charge framed against the respondent it is
specifically mentioned that:
"whereas, the alleged distortion of public records by the Superintendent of
Taxes, Charge-IV, Agartala by way of overwriting „36‟ on „31‟ in the
assessment order dated 28.03.2015 for the year 2006-07 had taken place during
processing of the refund application on 10.01.2023."
[16] It was further submitted that by order dated 26.07.2024 the
respondent was placed under suspension. On 22.08.2012 one assessment order was
passed by Mr. P. Roy, the then Superintendent of Taxes Charge-IV, Agartala,
against the dealer M/s M.P. Khaitan, quoting the provision of Section-31(4) of the
TVAT Act, 2004. Challenging the said assessment order, the dealer M/s M.P.
Khaitan preferred revision petition after filing statutory deposit before the
Commissioner of Taxes. The Commissioner of Taxes being the revisional authority
vide order dated 19.02.2014 remanded the matter back to the Superintendent of
Taxes, Charge-IV setting aside the assessment orders for the year 2006-07, 2007-
08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 dated 22.08.2012 with a further
direction to complete the reassessment within 30.04.2014.
[17] Thereafter, another assessment order was passed on 28.03.2015 under
Rule-21(3) of The Tripura Value Added Tax Rules (for short, TVAT Rules) by Mr.
M. Sengupta, another Superintendent of Taxes, Charge-IV, Agartala in which
assessment was made under Section-36 of the TVAT Act, 2004. In the said
assessment order Section-36 was overwritten by ink and at the time of passing
assessment order under Section-36 of the TVAT Act, 2004. It was also stated that
in the second page of the assessment order Section-36 was also overwritten by ink
by the assessing officer stating that the assessment was taken up under Section-36
of the TVAT Act, 2004.
[18] Learned counsel thereafter drawn the attention of this Court referring
the provisions of Section-31 and 36 of TVAT Act, 2004 and submitted that
although in both the provisions it is written that the Commissioner of Taxes has the
power to assess but the said power is delegated to the Superintendent of Taxes
although there is no dispute in this regard. It has been further contended that the
assessing, appellate or revisional authority on the basis of an application or suo
moto also, within 3(three) years from the date of any order passed can rectify any
error apparent on the face of the record.
[19] It is further submitted that at the time of passing assessment order in
pursuance of the direction of the revisional authority dated 19.02.2014, the
Superintendent of Taxes being the assessing authority had the scope to rectify any
error and prima facie it is on record that the figure "6" was overwritten by ink. The
earlier assessment order dated 22.08.2012 was shown to have been passed under
Section-31(4) of the TVAT Act. Learned Counsel thereafter submitted that when
the assessment orders dated 22.08.2012 and subsequent order dated 28.03.2015
were passed the respondent herein, was holding the post of Inspector of Taxes and
as such, on that relevant point of time as a Superintendent of Taxes he had no
authority or scope to pass any assessment order but surprisingly the department
concerned tried to implicate him as the assessing officer in both the occasions
which is nothing but a frivolous, vexatious allegation of the department just to
damage his service career.
[20] It has been referred that the order dated 18.03.2002 issued by the then
Commissioner of Taxes by which the respondent was appointed to the post of
Inspector of Taxes and the subsequent order dated 15.09.2017 by which he was
promoted to the post of Superintendent of Taxes w.e.f. 02.02.2017. Further, vide
notification dated 20.06.2023 issued by the Under Secretary, Finance Department,
Govt. of Tripura, the respondent was appointed to the post of Asstt. Commissioner
of Taxes on Ad-hoc promotion. Referring those documents learned counsel for the
further submitted that on the alleged date of passing the assessment orders when
the respondent was not holding the post of Superintendent of Taxes in that case
how the department without any basis falsely implicated him in this departmental
proceeding. It is submitted that the respondent is suffering from mental agony and
harassment for this reason. On bare perusal of both the assessment orders, it will be
crystal clear that both the orders were passed by two different officers not by the
present respondent but with an ulterior motive and on the basis of a fake
communication submitted by one Sanjay Khaitan on behalf of M/s M.P. Khaitan to
the Commissioner of Taxes on 09.04.2024, the respondent was given show-cause
notice and later on he has been entangled with the departmental proceeding as
stated above. Furthermore, referring to Annexure-8 i.e. the communication dated
21.03.2024, learned counsel drawn the attention of this Court that in para 3 of the
said communication it is stated that they have not received any assessment order
which was passed on 28.03.2015 but surprisingly at the time of passing assessment
order the representative of the concerned dealer was present. So, how it can be
agitated by them that no copy of order was served upon them or they had no
knowledge.
[21] Learned counsel has again drawn the attention of this Court referring
the notice dated 13.03.2024issued by the Superintendent of State Tax, Charge-IV,
Agartala wherein, it was specifically stated that the assessment order was passed
under Section-36 of TVAT Act, 2004 and M/s M.P. Khaitan was asked to make
payment of Rs.47,38,775/- as interest on delayed payment but by this time the
interest has been paid by the dealer itself. Again, learned counsel for the respondent
referred the communication dated 11.04.2016 submitted by Mr. M. Sengupta, the
then Superintendent of Taxes, Charge-IV, Agartala to the Joint Commissioner of
Taxes, Govt. of Tripura regarding the inspection report on the receipt and
expenditure accounts for the period from 10/2014 to 11/2015 wherein it was clearly
stated that the fresh assessment order was passed under Section-36 of the TVAT
Act, 2004 when the dealer submitted a prayer requesting adjustment of said dues of
Rs.30,67,168/- from the pre-requisite money of Rs.2,00,06,981/- which was
statutorily deposited at the time of revision case.
[22] Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and
having gone through the material evidence on record as well as the observation
made by the learned Single Judge, this Court is of the view that on bare perusal of
the articles of charge prima facie it appears that the main allegation of the
appellants against the respondent is that he has distorted public records by way of
overwriting Section 36 over Section 31 in the assessment order dated 28.03.2015
for the year 2006-07 in course of processing of refund application on 10.01.2023.
However, on perusal of assessment order dated 22.08.2012 and subsequent
assessment order dated 28.03.2015 it is crystal clear that both the orders were
passed by two different persons. One was passed by Mr. P. Roy, Superintendent of
Taxes, Charge-IV and i.e. subsequent assessment order dated 28.03.2015 was
issued by one Mr. M Sengupta, Superintendent of Taxes, Charge-IV, Agartala.
Further, on perusal of order dated 18.03.2002 it appears that by that order the
respondent was appointed as Inspector of Taxes and on perusal of order dated
15.09.2017 issued by Commissioner of Taxes, it appears that he was promoted to
the post of Superintendent of Taxes w.e.f. 02.02.2017.
[23] So, when assessment order dated 22.08.2012 was issued that time the
respondent was not the Superintendent of Taxes of the respective charge and when
the subsequent assessment order dated 28.03.2015 was passed by Mr. M. Sengupta,
another Superintendent of Taxes, Charge-IV that time the present respondent was
also holding the post of Inspector of Taxes. So, it is very much surprising as to how
the appellants have issued memo dated 07.09.2024 to the respondent when the
respondent was in no way attached to the respective charge as alleged by the
appellants.
[24] Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellants has
submitted that the Court can only interfere when there is statutory violation but at
this stage since the departmental proceeding has initiated and is still pending for
disposal, the respondent would have the liberty or scope to substantiate his
contention before the inquiring authority. It was further submitted that it is not the
case of the respondent that there was no scope given to him and it is also not the
case of the respondent that the departmental proceeding was initiated by an
incompetent person. There was also no allegation on the part of the respondent that
the proceeding is contemplated by appointing an inquiring authority who is
incompetent to proceed with the matter.
[25] After overall discussions, we are of the opinion that the appeal may
be disposed of by modifying the order of the learned Single Judge and insofar as
the departmental proceedings are concerned, the inquiry authority shall conclude
the same as expeditiously as possible preferably on or before 31st August, 2026. It
is needless to observe that the writ petitioner, the respondent herein, to cooperate
with the inquiry proceedings. It is further observed that the inquiry authority shall
act in all fairness, during the course of inquiry. Since, the order of the learned
Single Judge has been complied with subject to the outcome of the writ appeal by
revoking the suspension order of the writ petitioner and he has already taken the
charge as Asst. Commissioner of Taxes, he shall continue to be in service till
further orders are passed in accordance with law by the concerned authority and
accordingly, the same is ordered.
[26] With the above observation/modification, the present appeal stands
disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous application(s), pending if any, shall also
stand closed.
S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA, J DR.T. AMARNATH GOUD, J
A. Ghosh
ANJAN GHOSH Date:
2026.02.25 15:58:38 +05'30'
