M/S. Sail,(Rourkela Steel Plant),Rourkela vs. Commissioner Of Sales Tax CT And GST,Odisha
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER 26.09.2024
Mr. Ray, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, impugned are letter dated 7th August, 2024 as well as notices for less payment of tax, all dated 2nd February, 2024 issued in Form- E 24. // 2 //
He submits, the demand of entry tax was initially challenged before this Court. The matter travelled to the Supreme Court and there was direction for payment of 50% of the demand. He demonstrates from page-87 of the counter that the demand was for ₹66,33,86,674/- pertaining to period 1st August, 2011 to 30th September, 2012. Pursuant to direction made by the Supreme Court, his client paid ₹33,16,93,337/-. So far as balance of the demand is concerned, there was appeal preferred. He demonstrates from order dated 23rd August, 2023, the Commissioner had granted ‘full stay’ against the balance demand. We find from serial no.12 in the table giving particulars of the revision cases, there are particulars given regarding period 1st April, 2008 to 31st March, 2012. We, therefore, are prima facie satisfied that the ‘full stay’ covered the balance demand.
Mr. Ray submits further, there have been issued attachment orders inspite of the ‘full stay’ operative. Therefore, he seeks interference with impugned letter and the notices to pay, all dated 2nd February, 2024. 4. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate, Standing Counsel appears on behalf of revenue. We have not called upon him to answer.
// 3 //
On perusal of impugned letter dated 7th August, 2024 we find from paragraph-6 that petitioner’s contention regarding issuance of notices in Form- E 24 was accepted in light of judgment in Toyo Engineering India Limited vide W.P.(C) no.7178 of 2011. We reproduce the paragraph for clarity.
“6. As far as the contentions raised with respect to the issuance of notice in Form E-24 is concerned, the same is hereby accepted in the lights of judgment passed in case of Toyo Engineering India Limited vide W.P.(C) no.7178 of 2011. However, it will no way will affect the ET liability on quantum of Scheduled goods that is brought from outside the state as well as imported from outside the country.”
Considering petitioner’s contention on impugned notices to pay stood accepted. The only grievance petitioner can have is against rest of contents in impugned letter dated 7th August, 2024. Relevant contents of the letter reflects consideration by the authority of reply dated 5th August, 2024 submitted by petitioner. Upon recording its consideration of the reply, the authority required petitioner to discharge balance sum of ₹104,85,30,169/- before due date as notified earlier to be 12th August, 2024. // 4 //
We have not been able to find any connection with the requirement to discharge payment of entry tax at ₹104,85,30,169/-, reiterated by impugned letter dated 7th August, 2024 with demand for balance entry tax, subject matter and covered by the ‘full stay’. In event petitioner has any contention regarding reasons given in impugned reply dated 7th August, 2024, petitioner must find its remedy.
The writ petition is disposed of.
(Arindam Sinha)
Judge
(M.S. Sahoo)
Judge Sks
Reproduced from the public record of the Orissa High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.