M/S. Deepak Steel And Power LTD., Keonjhar vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And GST, Odisha

Facts

The petitioners, M/s. Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. & Another, challenged an assessment order dated 12th June, 2017, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Barbil Circle, Barbil, for the period 1st April 2013 to 31st March 2015. The demand was raised under the Central Sales Tax Act. The petitioners argued that the assessment order should be set aside because the necessary documents could not be produced as they had been seized by the Vigilance Department during a raid. This same ground had led this Court to set aside a previous assessment order for the period 1st April 2010 to 31st March 2011 under the Orissa Value Added Tax Act (OVAT Act) and the Odisha Entry Tax Act (OET Act) and remand it for fresh assessment.

Held

The Court held that the assessment order dated 12th June, 2017, passed against the Petitioners for the period 1st April 2013 to 31st March 2015, was liable to be set aside. The Court reasoned that the same ground, namely the inability to produce documents due to seizure by the Vigilance Department, had previously led this Court to set aside a similar assessment order for the period 1st April 2010 to 31st March 2011 under the OVAT Act and OET Act and remand the matter. Therefore, consistency dictated that the impugned order in the present case should also be set aside and the matter remanded. The Court directed the setting aside of the assessment order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Authority for fresh assessment proceedings, with the petitioners to cooperate and the Assessing Authority to pass a fresh order within four months after granting sufficient opportunity to produce documents. The petitioners were also permitted to apply for certified copies of the seized documents.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 12th June, 2017, passed under the Central Sales Tax Act for the period 1st April 2013 to 31st March 2015, is liable to be set aside on the ground that the required documents could not be produced due to their seizure by the Vigilance Department. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners contended that the assessment order should be quashed because the inability to produce crucial documents was solely due to their seizure by the Vigilance Department. They relied on this Court's prior order dated 11th May 2018 in W.P.(C) No.2963 of 2018, which set aside a similar assessment order for a different period under the OVAT Act and OET Act on the identical ground and remanded the matter for fresh assessment. Revenue's Argument: The judgment records no specific argument from the Opposite Parties (Revenue/State).