M/S.Microtek Transformers vs. Additional Commissioner Ofsales Tax CT And GST

Held

The Court held that the impugned order of the Addl. Commissioner of Sales Tax, CT & GST, Balasore, dismissing the first appeal as time-barred, should be set aside. The Court reasoned that while the revenue's contention regarding the lack of a formal condonation petition was noted, the petitioner's assertion of a significantly later receipt of the assessment order, coupled with the attachment of their bank account, warranted a fresh consideration of the appeal on its merits. The Court found it necessary to allow the petitioner an opportunity to present their case fully. The ratio decidendi is that where there is a significant dispute regarding the date of service of an assessment order, and the petitioner demonstrates a plausible reason for delay and lack of awareness, the appellate authority should decide the appeal on its merits rather than summarily dismissing it as time-barred based on potentially disputed evidence of service. The Court directed the matter to be remanded to the first appellate authority for fresh adjudication, subject to the petitioner paying a cost of Rs. 2500/- to the Odisha State Legal Services Authority within 15 days and complying with all statutory requirements for filing the first appeal, including pre-deposit, within the same period.

Facts

The petitioner assails an order dated 22.10.2020 passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Sales Tax, CT & GST, Balasore, which dismissed the petitioner's first appeal as time-barred. The appeal was against an assessment order dated 29.8.2017 passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Balasore Range, for the period 01.04.2014 to 30.09.2015 under Section 9C of the Orissa Entry Tax Act, raising a demand of Rs. 29,11,978/-. The appellate authority relied on a letter dated 05.10.2020 from the Sales Tax Officer, CT & GST Circle, Balasore, confirming the petitioner received the assessment order on 23.09.2017 via registered post. The petitioner claims to have received the order only on 21.08.2020 and only became aware of the ex-parte assessment order when their bank account was attached on 27.7.2020, resulting in a debit of Rs. 3,46,204.00.

Key Issues

1. Whether the first appeal filed by the petitioner was time-barred, considering the conflicting dates of receipt of the assessment order, specifically turning on the interpretation of the evidence regarding the date of service of the assessment order dated 29.8.2017. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they received the assessment order on 21.08.2020, not 23.09.2017 as confirmed by the Sales Tax Officer. They contended that they only became aware of the ex-parte order when their bank account was attached on 27.07.2020. They relied on the specific plea made in their application before the appellate authority. Revenue's contention: The revenue argued that the petitioner had not filed any petition before the appellate authority seeking condonation of delay, taking the plea now raised in the writ petition. They relied on the report dated 05.10.2020 from the Sales Tax Officer.