M/S.Rashmi Aquatech vs. State Of Orissa
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER 02.04.2024
matter is taken up through hybrid mode. d Mr. U.C. Behura, learned counsel app d Mr. S. Mishra, learned Standing Coun site party. petitioner has filed this revision under Se e Added Tax Act 2004 with a prayer to as set out in the revision petition. factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that turing unit engaged in production and sa ter, butter milk, flavoured water, etc. he acceptance of report and formation of ailable for the purpose of escaped turnov n 43 of the OVAT Act basing on the mate 2008 and any assessment is permissible ng any return either on the date of visit a ithout verification of returns for the pu
K Petitioner hera, Advocate Opposite Party SC, CT & GST Organization pearing for the nsel appearing ction 80 of the adjudicate the t the petitioner ale of packaged The petitioner f opinion of the ver assessment erials available under the Act and acceptance urpose of any
assessment u maintainabili finding of fa form an opin possessed ma assessment th and Audit as and report ha
Being preferred firs Ganjam Ran order dated appeal bearin Tribunal, afte to a finding t yet tripe bea filing of retu visit has got established. dealer was in paying tax on water sold in the dealer fra fora below is has filed this in paragraph- “(a) W rejectin regard assessm under the OVAT Act up to 31.03.2008. It ity of the order and formation of op acts without having any materials to ju nion under Section 43(1) that the Assessi aterials in his hand for the purpose of esc that the same has been escaped from s ssessment or any other assessment where as not been examined and found escaped. g aggrieved by the order of assessment, st appeal before the Joint Commissioner nge, Berhampur, which was confirmed 31.10.2013, against which the petitione ng No.313(V) of 2013-14 and the Odi er due adjudication, vide order dated 29 that the period for filing returns of Q/E. 3 ars no importance since everything was urn along with the books of accounts an t no relation with the allegation of supp Apart from the same, it has been obs ndulged in huge scale clandestine trans n taxable items and also not showing ex n containers. For this, the fora below have audulent one and the tax and penalty cal s now sustained. Aggrieved by such order revision and raised two questions of law -8 of the revision petition, which read as u Whether the division bench of the tribunal is just ng the grounds and submissions of the pe ding the formation of opinion for escaped t ment without having any returns with disclos
challenged the inion on post stify and/or to ing Officer has caped turnover self-assessment e the materials the petitioner r of Sales Tax, d by him vide er filed second sha Sales Tax .02.2016 came 3/2008 was not s verified after nd thus date of pression found erved that the actions by not xact quantity of e rightly found lculated by the r, the petitioner w, as mentioned under: tified by etitioner turnover sing the
admitte purpos certain assessm procee whole assesse
(b) W confirm the fa /conver turnove Plastic officer sealed course of acco bench f the sett
On a question of l Tribunal, afte particular, th appeal, writte that the asse OVAT Act submitted by into existence 07.03.2008. T 01.04.2007 t scale sale su verification, business, wa accounts for No.OR-07N- ed facts and accounts of purchase and sales se of any kinds of assessment and orders t n facts and figures has been escaped from ment for the purpose of formation of opinion in ed for the purpose of escaped turnover assessm and any part of turnover has already been foun ed under the OVAT Act & Rules. Whether the Ld Division Bench is justifi mation of order of tax and penalty without cons acts that exempted turnover shall not be a rted for the purpose of assessment as a er i.e. butter milk and drinking water sold in c jars without any sealed container and the ins has not submitted any report whether the ja or not and similarly the rate of sale submitte e of hearing of the 2nd appeal supported with th ount which was not appreciated by the learned for which the order is perverse and not tenable tled principles of law.” thorough scrutiny of the facts of the law which have been framed, it is made er going through the materials available he order of assessment, order of appea en note of submission, cross objection file essment has been completed under Sect basing on the allegation made in frau y the Vigilance Officials, Berhampur Win e after thorough verification of the place The assessment in question relates to th o 31.03.2008. During the course of ver uppression has been detected. At the the supervisor of the firm, who was loo as present. But, he could not produce verification instantly. At that time, one v -2908 was loaded with packaged dr
for the that the m such order to ment that nd under fied for sidering assessed taxable 20 Ltrs specting ar were d in the he books division e as per case and the e clear that the e on record, in al, grounds of ed, pointed out tion 43 of the ud case report ng which came of business on he period from rification, huge time of spot oking after the any books of vehicle bearing rinking water,
without being allegation of established b OVAT Act f assessment o Bhanjalipi Ex recovered wh the dealer pe were verifie produced and the period fo no importanc along with th relation with In vie ground (a) answered righ
So far 8 of the wri lodged again drinking wat below have r Pet Jars as pe the OVAT packaged dr tarnished as b the dealer be law framed a g supported with any sale bill or challan, f sale suppression of Rs.3000/- has right by the STO. The turnover under Sect for the same period has been excluded order. During the course of verificat xercise Note Book and many written do hich depicted huge scale on clandestine etitioner. All these recovered incriminati ed on 30.09.2008 vis-à-vis the books d allegation was lodged against the dea or filing returns of Q/E. 3/2008 was not ce since everything was verified after f he books of accounts and thus date of v the allegation of suppression found estab ew of the above, the question, which has b in paragraph-8 of the revision petiti htly by the Tribunal. r as question of law framed as ground (b) it petition is concerned, it is apparent nst the dealer is non-payment of tax ter and 20 litres of water sold in Pet- rightly taxed packaged drinking water and er the requirement of Serial No.36 of the Act. The claim of the dealer of non rinking water and water sold in Pet J baseless, since there was confused explan efore the Assessing Authority. Therefor as (b) has been answered rightly by the Tr
, for which the tly been found ion 42 of the in the instant tion also one ocuments were transaction of ing documents s of accounts aler. Therefore, yet tripe bears filing of return visit has got no blished. been framed as ion, has been ) in paragraph- that allegation on packaged Jars. The fora d water sold in Schedule-A of n-taxability of Jars is further nation given by re, question of ribunal.
In the illegality or i Sales Tax Tr 2013-2014. 8. Accor is dismissed.
Alok
e above view of the matter, this Court doe irregularity in the order dated 29.02.2016 ribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in S.A. rdingly, STREV merits no consideration
(DR. B.R. S JUDG
(G. SATA
JUD
es not find any 6 passed by the No.313(V) of n and the same SARANGI) GE APATHY) DGE
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.