M/S.Field Motors PVT.LTD. vs. State Of Odisha
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER
2023 Order No. 09. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
Heard Mr. Sumit Lal, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and also heard Mr. S.S. Padhi, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the CT & GST.
By means of this revision petition filed under Section-80 of the Odisha Value Added Tax, 2004, the order dated 28.02.2019 passed in S.A. No.347 (VAT) of 2013-14 delivered by the Full Bench of the Odisha Sales Tax Tribunal, Cuttack confirming the order dated 06.12.2013 passed in the First Appeal being Appeal Case No.AA- CUII- 142/2007-08 has been challenged.
Mr. Lal, learned counsel has fairly submitted that while selling the automobile, the revision petitioner, who is the dealer did
2
not reflect the discount that he had granted to the buyer. But later on, some spare parts was given away without any price in lieu of discount. Mr. Lal, learned counsel has admitted that there is no reflection of such discount in any record. The first appellate authority and the second appellate authority have observed that the revision petitioner is liable to pay the due tax with penalty for those motor spare parts which had been given away by the revision petitioner.
Mr. Lal, learned counsel has further asserted that by the recent amendment which was carried out in 2015, the penalty has been reduced to 100% from 200%. There cannot be any debate over the said legislative change. That benefit has been urged to be given to the dealer, the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Padhi, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for CT & GST has contended that there is no infirmity in the judgment and as such, this revision petition should be shot down at this stage. Even no substantial question of law is involved.
Having heard the counsel for the parties, we find force in the submission of Mr. Padhi, learned Addl. Standing Counsel. The finding is concurrent one and hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the finding as regard to liability of tax and penalty. But at the same time, in view of the legislative change that has taken place by 3
reducing the volume of the penalty and keeping in consideration of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we reduce the penalty from 200% to 100%, but this will not create any precedent for any other case, in as much as, we have not laid down any principle to be applied generally.
The revision petitioner is directed to pay the tax and the penalty within a period of two months from today.
Accordingly, the revision petition stands disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.
(S. Talapatra)
Judge
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
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.