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 matter. It found that all the issues raised by the petitioner could be dealt with by the appellate authority in the first appeal. Therefore, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to file an appeal within two weeks from the date of the order. The petitioner was directed to make the necessary pre-deposit, but with a specific instruction to deduct the turnover relatable to the declaration forms that they would produce before the First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority was tasked with verifying this calculation and passing further directions regarding the pre-deposit amount. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's original contentions but facilitated their adjudication by the appellate forum. The operative direction was to permit the filing of an appeal with specific conditions regarding pre-deposit and the production of evidence.

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 collected several declaration forms that were previously missing and wished to produce them. The petitioner also raised other contentions. The High Court, while refraining from exercising its writ jurisdiction, granted the petitioner liberty to file an appeal within two weeks from the date of the order. This appeal was to be filed with the 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 petitioner should be allowed to file an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, given that the writ petition was filed challenging a provisional assessment order? 2. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to produce subsequently collected declaration forms before the First Appellate Authority to reduce the turnover relatable to the pre-deposit? Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that they had collected substantial missing declaration forms after the assessment order was passed and these forms should be considered. They also raised various other contentions that were not detailed in the judgment. The petitioner sought to avail the appellate remedy. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Revenue. However, the Revenue was represented by learned Senior Standing counsel, indicating their appearance and participation in the proceedings.