M/S.Sahoo Brothers Trading And Enginnering vs. The Sales Tax Officer,Cuttack Ii

Held

The Court held that the impugned assessment order, concerning the period up to September 30, 2015, is set aside. This decision is based on the judgment of the High Court in M/s. Keshab Automobiles v. State of Odisha, which was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court of India. The reasoning is that the precedent directly addresses the validity of assessments for periods preceding the specified cut-off date. The Court did not delve into the merits of the tax demand itself but applied the established legal principle. The matter is remanded to the Assessing Authority, Cuttack-II Circle, Cuttack, to rework the demand based on this ruling. The Assessing Authority is directed to pass an appropriate order after hearing the petitioner, not later than March 1, 2023. The matter is listed before the Assessing Authority on January 31, 2023. The petitioner retains the right to seek further remedies if aggrieved by the revised demand.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sahoo Brothers Trading & Engineering, challenged an assessment order passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Sambalpur-I Circle. The dispute pertains to a tax demand for a period up to September 30, 2015. The petitioner approached the High Court of Orissa through a writ petition. The Court referred to its own prior judgment in SREV No.64 of 2016, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.9912 of 2022. This precedent dealt with similar issues concerning tax assessments for periods prior to the implementation of GST.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment order, to the extent it pertains to the period up to September 30, 2015, is liable to be set aside in light of the High Court's judgment in M/s. Keshab Automobiles v. State of Odisha, as upheld by the Supreme Court in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. M/s. Rathi Steel and Power Limited? The petitioner argued that the assessment order for the period prior to September 30, 2015, should be quashed based on the binding precedent established by the High Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court. The revenue did not record any specific arguments against this contention in the judgment.