Ramesh Javery And Co. vs. State

Held

The Court allowed the revision petition. For the first issue, the Court held that the assessment order passed under Section 9C of the OET Act was indeed barred by limitation, as per Section 9C(6) of the OET Act. This finding was based on a previous judgment of the same Court in M/s. Cobra Instalaciones Y Servicios, S.A. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Cuttack. For the second issue, the Court found that the submission of the audit visit report (AVR) in Form E27 was also time-barred, in view of Section 9B(2) read with Rule 11(5)(c) of the OET Rules. This was supported by earlier High Court decisions in M/s. Pal Construction v. The Assessing Authority, Bhubaneswar I Circle, Bhubaneswar and M/s. Grihasthi Udyog v. Commissioner of Sales Tax. Consequently, the impugned orders of the Tribunal, ACST, and Assessing Authority were set aside.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Ramesh Javery & Co., filed a revision petition before the High Court of Orissa challenging orders passed by the Tribunal, ACST, and Assessing Authority. The Department sought multiple adjournments for the production of the original record, which were rejected by the Court. The petitioner raised two primary questions concerning the limitation period for assessment orders and the submission of audit visit reports. The Court considered previous judgments of the High Court on similar issues.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order of assessment passed by the Assessing Authority under Section 9C of the Odisha Entry Tax Act, 1994 (OET Act) suffers from limitation as per Section 9C(6) of the OET Act? The petitioner contended that the assessment order was time-barred. 2. Whether the submission of an audit visit report (AVR) in Form E27 suffers from limitation in view of Section 9B(2) read with Rule 11(5)(c) of the OET Rules? The petitioner argued that the AVR submission was also beyond the prescribed time limit. The State (Opposite Party) did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.