M/S. Supertron Electronics PVT. LTD. Bbsr vs. State Of Odisha

Held

The Court held that the Odisha Sales Tax Tribunal's order dismissing the petitioner's petition for condonation of delay was unsustainable. The Court found that while the Revenue claimed the First Appellate Authority's order was sent via speed post on 25.01.2018, there was no material on record to establish that this order was actually served on the petitioner. The Court emphasized that mere consignment of a document does not equate to service, and the inability of postal authorities to provide service details further supported the conclusion that service was not effected. Relying on the principles from Sinclair Murray, Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh, and Sabarmati Gas Limited, the Court reiterated that limitation periods are to be calculated from the date of actual knowledge or communication of the order to the affected party. The Court concluded that the onus was on the authority to ensure service and keep evidence thereof. Therefore, the Tribunal's order was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Supertron Electronics Pvt. Ltd., challenged an order dated 17.09.2022 passed by the Odisha Sales Tax Tribunal, Cuttack, which dismissed its petition for condonation of delay. The petitioner argued that it had not received the order dated 27.12.2017 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeal), Bhubaneswar, and therefore, the 60-day period for filing an appeal under Section 78 of the Odisha Value Added Tax Act, 2004, should be calculated from the date of receipt of the order. The Revenue contended that the First Appeal order dated 27.12.2017 was sent via speed post on 25.01.2018 and was not returned. However, postal authorities could not provide service details as records for that period were not available.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Odisha Sales Tax Tribunal erred in dismissing the petitioner's petition for condonation of delay without sufficient material on record to establish the service of the First Appellate Authority's order on the petitioner, thereby violating the principles laid down in Section 78 of the Odisha Value Added Tax Act, 2004, and relevant precedents? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that Section 78 of the Odisha Value Added Tax Act, 2004, mandates that the 60-day period for preferring an appeal to the Tribunal is to be calculated from the date of receipt of the order. Since no material was placed before the Tribunal to show that the order was received by the petitioner, the Tribunal's order dismissing the appeal for delay is unsustainable. The petitioner relied on Sinclair Murray and Company (PVT) Ltd. v. State of Orissa, Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer, and Sabarmati Gas Limited v. Shah Alloys Limited. Revenue's arguments: The Revenue stated that the First Appeal order was sent via speed post on 25.01.2018 and was not returned. However, the postal authorities could not provide service details due to the unavailability of records for that period.