M/S Microtek Transformers vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Sales Tax, CT And GST

Held

The Court set aside the impugned order dated 22.10.2020 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, CT & GST, Balasore. The matter was remanded to the first appellate authority for deciding the appeal on its own merits. This decision was subject to the condition that the appellant-petitioner pays a cost of Rs. 2500/- to the Odisha State Legal Services Authority and produces the receipt thereof before the first appellate authority within 15 days from the date of the order. Additionally, the appellant-petitioner was required to comply with all statutory requirements for filing a first appeal, including pre-deposit, within the same stipulated period. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner assails an order dated 22.10.2020 by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, CT & GST, Balasore. This order dismissed the petitioner's first appeal as time-barred. The appeal was against an assessment order dated 29.08.2017 passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Balasore Range, for the tax period 01.04.2014 to 30.09.2015, which raised a demand of Rs. 6,24,092/- based on an Audit Visit Report. The petitioner claimed to have received the assessment order on 21.08.2020, while the appellate authority relied on a letter dated 05.10.2020 from the Sales Tax Officer confirming receipt by the petitioner on 23.09.2017 via registered post with A.D. The petitioner's bank account was attached on 27.07.2020, which alerted them to the ex-parte order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the first appeal filed by the petitioner against the assessment order dated 29.08.2017 was time-barred, considering the conflicting dates of receipt of the assessment order, under Section 42 of the OVAT Act, 2004? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they only received the assessment order on 21.08.2020, and the appellate authority's reliance on the Sales Tax Officer's report dated 05.10.2020, which stated receipt on 23.09.2017, was incorrect. They further submitted that they became aware of the ex-parte order only when their bank account was attached on 27.07.2020. They also pointed out that a similar matter, W.P.(C) No.31227 of 2020, had already been disposed of by the Court. Revenue's contention: The Revenue contended that the petitioner had not filed any petition before the appellate authority seeking condonation of delay, nor had they raised the plea of receiving the order on 21.08.2020 before the appellate authority.