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 20, 2018, passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Jajpur Circle, Jajpur Road. This order rejected the Petitioner's claim for refund for the period from April 1, 2015, to March 31, 2016. 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 contended 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 Opposite Parties, represented by the Sales Tax Department, argued 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 directed that the Petitioner could file a revision petition before the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by May 3, 2021. The Court further directed that any explanation offered by the Petitioner for the delay in filing the revision petition, attributable to the pendency of the writ petition, would be considered by the Additional Commissioner in accordance with the law. The Additional Commissioner was mandated to dispose of the revision petition on its own merits by August 2, 2021. This decision was to be made notwithstanding the circular issued by the Commissioner, which the revenue described as merely clarificatory. The Court did not decide the merits of the refund claim itself but facilitated the Petitioner's access to the revisional remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner should be relegated to the alternative remedy of revision before the Additional Commissioner, despite the issuance of a circular by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes regarding refund processing, and if so, whether the delay in filing the revision petition due to the pendency of the writ petition should be condoned. Petitioner's contention: The Petitioner argued that the impugned order was revisable, but a circular issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on January 7, 2017, concerning refund applications rendered the revisional remedy ineffective. Therefore, pursuing revision would serve no useful purpose. Revenue's contention: The Opposite Parties argued that the impugned order was not passed pursuant to the Commissioner's circular. They further contended 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.