M/S.Visa Steel LTD. vs. Sales Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Visa Steel Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated February 2, 2018, passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Jajpur Circle. This order rejected the petitioner's claim for a refund for the period from April 1, 2016, to March 31, 2017. The claim was made under Section 35(4)(c) of the Odisha Entry Tax Act, 1999, read with Rule 30(3)(d) of the Odisha Entry Tax Rules, 1999. The petitioner argued that while the order was revisable, a circular issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on January 7, 2017, regarding refund processing made pursuing revision futile. The revenue contended that the impugned order was not passed pursuant to that circular and that the revisional authority is the Additional Commissioner, who would consider the petition on its merits.

Held

The Court did not decide the merits of the refund claim or the validity of the order passed by the Sales Tax Officer. Instead, the Court directed that it would be open for the Petitioner to file a revision petition before the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The Petitioner was given a deadline of May 3, 2021, to file this revision. The Court further directed that any explanation offered by the Petitioner for the delay in filing the revision, attributable to the pendency of the writ petition, would be considered by the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner was mandated to dispose of the revision petition on its own merits by August 2, 2021, notwithstanding the circular issued by the Commissioner, which the revenue described as merely clarificatory. The Court did not leave any issue expressly undecided, but rather facilitated a procedural remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's claim for refund for the period April 1, 2016, to March 31, 2017, was validly rejected by the Sales Tax Officer under Section 35(4)(c) of the Odisha Entry Tax Act, 1999, read with Rule 30(3)(d) of the Odisha Entry Tax Rules, 1999. Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned order, though revisable, was rendered ineffective due to a circular issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on January 7, 2017, concerning refund application processing, rendering a revision petition pointless. Revenue's contentions: The revenue argued that the impugned order was not passed in accordance with the aforementioned circular. Furthermore, they pointed out that the revisional authority is the Additional Commissioner, not the Commissioner, and that the Additional Commissioner would consider the revision petition on its merits, irrespective of the circular.