M/S.Ntpc LTD. vs. Sales Tax Officer,Angul
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER 26.04.2023
Order No. 4 This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Heard Mr. A.K. Panda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for CT & GST Department.
Mr. A.K. Panda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that since there is no delay in filing the revision petition, as it has been filed within 60 days, question of taking steps for limitation does not arise. It is contended that the petitioner received the copy of the order impugned on 11.12.2018 and filed the STREV on 11.02.2019. Therefore, in view of the provisions contained in Section-24 (1) of the OST Act, 1947, which provides for sixty days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, the revision has been filed within the period prescribed.
In view of the above submission, there is no delay in filing the revision petition.
2
The petitioner has filed this revision petition challenging the order dated 03.12.2018 passed in S.A. No.96(C) of 2012-13, by which the Odisha Sales Tax Tribunal, Cuttack has dismissed the said S.A. by holding that both the fora below scrutinized the factual aspect, as argued by the dealer, and could not convince themselves with the claim of the dealer-petitioner. It was further held that there is no bona fide reason supported with cogent evidence to arrive at a definite conclusion that the claim of the dealer is correct and the determination of tax under the CST Act by the fora below needs no reversion.
Mr. A.K. Panda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that though the sale point was within the State and it was covered under the OST sale, but the petitioner by mistakenly had shown the said sale as CST sale. On that basis the demand, which has been raised, cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for CT & GST Department contended that if there was mistake on the part of the dealer-petitioner with regard to submission of return, unless the return is corrected and mistake is removed, the demand raised cannot be held to be illegal, as on the basis of the materials produced before the authority, the determination was made. Therefore, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the Tribunal in passing the order dated 03.12.2018 in S.A. No.96(C) of 2012-13 so as to warrant interference of this Court.
Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court holds
3
that unless and until the dealer-petitioner revised its return in both the counts, i.e., under the CST and OST, it is difficult to accept the argument of the petitioner that mistake was bona fide and actually transaction was not a CST sale. There is no evidence available on records that the dealer-petitioner has shown the same under the OST Act. Therefore, the so-called purchaser M/s. Bharat Oil Company, being an out State registered dealer, the sale is construed to be a CST sale. Therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any error in the order dated 03.12.2018 so as to cause interference by this Court.
Accordingly, STREV merits no consideration and the same is dismissed.
Alok
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
(M.S. RAMAN)
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.