Dharampal Satyapal Limited VsThe State of Tripura

Deepak Gupta, C.J.—The petitioner by means of this petition has challenged various orders whereby its goods were seized, the matter was compounded and the representation made by the petitioner was rejected by the State.

The petitioner-company has a unit in Tripura where it manufactures Zarda. According to the petitioner, it was transferring sandal wood oil from its unit in Noida to the unit in Tripura. The case of the petitioner is that this was a stock transfer. This sandal wood oil was being sent by air and since there was no permit, the goods were not released and were seized u/s 67 of the TVAT Act. The representative of the petitioner thereafter approached the revenue authorities for compounding the matter and the matter was compounded on payment of Rs. 12,00,000/-. By means of this petition, the petitioner submits that since it was only a stock transfer, there was no tax leviable and, therefore, the whole action of compounding is totally illegal.

We are not going into the merits of the case because we are of the considered view that in view of the conduct of the petitioner it is not entitled to file the present petition. On 22-08-2008, the authorised representative of the petitioner filed representation in writing to the Superintendent of Taxes, Agartala in which he stated that the sandal wood oil was being transferred as stock transfer in terms of form ''F''. He also has stated that earlier form ''F'' used to be issued but in this very representation the petitioner-company has stated as follows:-

"We agree with the rule of Sales Tax that if any materials carries from outside of state, it should carry valid Incoming Road Permit Form-24. But, as because the material was urgent for zarda Manufacturing & high valued items & perishable good, we can not keep that material any Cargo Godown for unattended to prevent the damage. As because it was Saturday, after reaching the material at airport at 11 am, if we apply for Incoming Road Permit at Sales Tax Department, it take Till Monday evening to clear that materials from Cargo Go-Down. So, we had given Undertaking to Cargo office to release the materials & we would submit the Road permit on Monday. Also, our production activity was totally stopped for the stock out of that material, so we had to incur huge production loss if we did not receive the material on Saturday."

The company was aware that when material was being brought in from outside the State, it should carry valid Incoming Road Permit in Form 24. The only explanation given is that since there was no officer of the revenue department posted there and their production had come to a halt, they lifted the stocks without the road permit. Not only that, the competent authority, i.e. the Superintendent of Taxes passed an order on the same date, i.e. 22-08-2008 compounding the matter at the request of the petitioner and the relevant portion of the order reads as follows:-

"Shri Subhasish Sain admitted the offence committed by them as the goods were imported by them from outside of the state and taken delivery from Cargo Section of INDIGO without obtaining any valid permit from Taxing Authority and he also opted to compound the case u/s. 80(1) of the TVAT Act, 2004 and accordingly, the case is compounded."

After having compounded the matter and agreeing to pay Rs. 12,00,000/- as composition money, the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the imposition of tax. In future transactions, it is for the petitioner to show whether it is liable to pay tax or not but once the petitioner has compounded the matter, it cannot be heard to now re-agitate the issue.

Therefore, we find no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed.