M/S.Lal Trades And Agencies PVT.LTD. vs. State Of Odisha

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s. Lal Trades & Agencies Pvt. Ltd., is challenging an assessment order dated 26th November, 2015, passed by the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax, Balasore Range, Balasore, for the period 1st April, 2012 to 31st March, 2014. Initially, the Petitioner had filed W.P.(C) No.238 of 2016. This Court, by an order dated 23rd December, 2021, allowed the Petitioner to file an appeal against the assessment order by 7th February, 2022. Subsequently, on 23rd September, 2022, an order was passed in that appeal, setting aside the original assessment order. The Appellate Authority found the assessment order under Section 12(3) of the CST (Orissa) Rules for the same period to be bad in law and also observed that the assessment order impugned in the present writ petition, which is under the OVAT Act, was similarly bad in law.

Held

The Court held that the impugned assessment order dated 26th November, 2015, passed by the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax, Balasore Range, under the OVAT Act for the period 1st April, 2012 to 31st March, 2014, does not survive. This conclusion is based on the fact that a related appeal concerning the same period and the Petitioner had resulted in an order dated 23rd September, 2022, setting aside the original assessment order. The Appellate Authority had explicitly found the assessment order under Section 12(3) of the CST (Orissa) Rules to be bad in law and had also observed that the assessment order impugned in the present writ petition was similarly bad in law. Consequently, the Court found the present writ petition to have been rendered infructuous. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition as infructuous.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 26th November, 2015, passed by the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax, Balasore Range, under the OVAT Act for the period 1st April, 2012 to 31st March, 2014, is bad in law, considering that a related assessment order under the CST (Orissa) Rules for the same period was set aside by the Appellate Authority. Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that since the Appellate Authority, in a related appeal concerning the same period and the Petitioner, had already set aside an assessment order and observed that the impugned assessment order under the OVAT Act was also bad in law, the present writ petition should be disposed of as infructuous. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Opposite Parties (State of Odisha and Others).