M/S.Millenium Products And Services vs. The Sales Tax Officer,CT And GST Circle

Held

The Court held that it would refrain from exercising its writ jurisdiction in the present matter. The reasoning was that the appellate authority is the appropriate forum to deal with all the issues raised by the petitioner, including those related to the newly collected declaration forms. The Court directed the petitioner to file an appeal before the First Appellate Authority within two weeks from the date of the order. The petitioner was permitted to make the pre-deposit after deducting the turnover attributable to the declaration forms they intended to produce. The First Appellate Authority was tasked with verifying this deduction and passing further directions regarding the pre-deposit amount. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's claims regarding the declaration forms or other contentions, leaving these to be adjudicated by the appellate authority. The operative direction was to allow the petitioner to pursue their statutory remedy of appeal.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ application challenging an order of provisional assessment dated 29.06.2018, passed by the Sales Tax Officer, CT & GST Circle, Bhubaneswar-IV, under Rule 12(1)(b) of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, 1957. The petitioner contended that subsequent to the assessment order, they had collected a substantial number of declaration forms that were available for production. The Court acknowledged these contentions but refrained from exercising its writ jurisdiction, finding that the appellate authority was better suited to address all the issues. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to file an appeal within two weeks from the date of the order, with necessary pre-deposit after deducting the turnover relatable to the declaration forms to be produced before the First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority was directed to verify this calculation and pass further directions regarding the pre-deposit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to entertain the challenge to the provisional assessment order when the petitioner claims to have subsequently collected crucial declaration forms. Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that they had collected substantial declaration forms after the provisional assessment order was passed, which could impact the disputed turnover. They also raised various other contentions that were not detailed in the judgment. The petitioner implicitly sought relief from the High Court to address these issues directly. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Revenue. However, by appearing and being represented by learned Senior Standing Counsel, the Revenue was present to defend the order under challenge.