M/S.Rahul Associates vs. State Of Odisha

Heard Mr. R.P. Kar, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. A.N. Ray, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the CT & GST Organization and Mr. A.P. Das, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.6. 3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order of assessment dated 11.02.2016 passed by opposite party no.4 in form VAT 312 along with the demand notice under Annexure-4, and to issue direction restraining opposite parties no.2 to 4 from collecting tax and penalty as involved in the order of assessment along with the demand notice under Annexure-4. 4. Mr. R.P. Kar, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. A.N. Ray, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Assessing Officer had passed the assessment order under Section 43 of the OVAT Act, vide order dated 29.11.2013, raising a demand of Rs. 10,36,96,834/- for the period 2013-14. It is further contended that the Assessing Officer again passed assessment order dated 11.02.2016 under Section 42 of the OVAT Act for the period 2009-10 to 2013-14 raising a demand of Rs.1,56,43,224/-. Therefore, he seeks for quashing of the order of assessment dated 11.02.2016 passed by opposite party no.4 in Form VAT 312 along with the demand notice under Annexure-4. 5. Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the CT & GST Organization vehemently contended that there is no overlapping in the assessment made under Sections 42 and 43 of the OVAT Act in the order impugned and it has been independently done under Section 43 of the OVAT Act for the period 2009-10 to 2013-14. Therefore, a distinct assessment has been made for the two different periods. It is contended that challenging the said period, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.1839 of 2014 and this Court, vide order dated 17.07.2019, disposed of the said writ petition relegating the petitioner to the appellate authority. Therefore, if the petitioner so likes it may prefer appeal for the period 2013-14. 6. Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that the Assessing Officer although has passed assessment order dated 29.11.2013 under Section 43 of the OVAT Act for the period 2013- 14 raising demand of Rs.1,56,43,224/-, again he passed order of assessment on 11.02.2016 under Section 42 of the OVAT Act for the period 2009-10 to 2013-14 stating that “thus the assessee is liable to pay VAT @ 13.5% on the gross payment received of Rs.10,36,96,834/- for the year 2013-14 as for the period 2009-10 to 2012-13 has been dealt in the assessment order vide no-4069, dt- 29/11/2013, u/s 43 of the OVAT Act, 2004”. As it appears from the said order, there is bifurcation of period, i.e., 2009-10 to 2012-13 and 2013-14. When the assessment was made for the period from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2014 vide order dated 29.11.2013 under Section 43 of the OVAT Act, a demand of Rs.1,56,43,224/- was raised and now bifurcating the period 2013-14, the Assessing Officer has raised a demand @ 13.5% amounting to Rs.10,36,96,834/- under Section 42 of the OVAT Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has not proceeded in correct manner. Challenging the order of assessment dated 29.11.2013, earlier the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.1839 of 2014 and this Court, vide order dated 17.07.2019, disposed of the said writ petition relegating the petitioner to the appellate authority. Therefore, this Court disposes of this writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority, who shall consider the question of applicability of Sections 42 and 43 of the OVAT Act. As such, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.