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 January 19, 2018, passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Jajpur Circle, Jajpur Road. This order rejected the Petitioner's claim for a refund for the period from April 1, 2012, to March 31, 2013. 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 acknowledged that the order was revisable but argued that a circular issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Odisha, on January 7, 2017, regarding refund processing made a revision petition futile. The Opposite Parties, represented by the Sales Tax Department, contended that the impugned order was not passed pursuant to the circular and that the revisional authority is the Additional Commissioner, who would consider the petition on its merits.

Held

The Court held that it would be open to the Petitioner to file a revision petition before the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The Court directed that the Petitioner should file this revision petition not later than May 3, 2021. Any explanation offered by the Petitioner for the delay in filing the revision petition, attributable to the pendency of the present writ petition, would be considered by the Additional Commissioner in accordance with the law. The Additional Commissioner was further directed to dispose of the revision petition on its own merits not later than August 2, 2021. This disposal was to be undertaken notwithstanding the circular issued by the Commissioner, which the Opposite Parties' counsel characterized as merely clarificatory. The Court did not decide the merits of the refund claim itself.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner should be relegated to the alternative remedy of filing a revision petition before the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, notwithstanding the issuance of a circular by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes regarding refund processing. Petitioner's contention: The Petitioner argued that the circular dated January 7, 2017, issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Odisha, concerning the processing of refund applications, rendered a revision petition before the Commissioner a futile exercise. They believed pursuing revision would serve no useful purpose. Opposite Parties' contention: The Opposite Parties (Sales Tax Department) contended that the impugned order was not passed in accordance with the aforementioned circular. They further argued that the appropriate 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.