M/S Empowertrans PVT.LTD. vs. The Sales Tax Officer, CT And GST Circle, Bbsr

Held

The Court held that it would refrain from exercising its writ jurisdiction in the matter. The Court found that all the issues raised by the petitioner, including those related to the newly collected declaration forms and other contentions, could be effectively dealt with by the appellate authority. The reasoning was that the appellate process provides a proper forum for examining such claims and evidence. The Court's decision was to grant the petitioner the liberty to file an appeal. The operative directions were to allow the petitioner to file an appeal within two weeks from the date of the order, with the necessary pre-deposit. This pre-deposit was to be calculated after deducting the turnover attributable to the declaration forms that the petitioner intended to produce before the First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority was directed to verify this calculation and make further directions regarding the pre-deposit as necessary. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner challenged an order of provisional assessment dated 18.02.2018, passed by the Sales Tax Officer, CT & GST Circle, Bhubaneswar-IV, under Rule-12(1) of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, 1957. The petitioner contended that subsequent to the order, they collected numerous declaration forms that were not previously available and wished to produce them. The petitioner also raised other contentions. The High Court, while refraining from exercising its writ jurisdiction, granted the petitioner liberty to file an appeal within two weeks from the date of the order. The appeal was to be filed with the necessary pre-deposit, after deducting the turnover relatable to the newly available declaration forms, which the First Appellate Authority was to verify.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to file an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, considering the subsequent collection of declaration forms and other contentions raised. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that they had subsequently collected a substantial number of declaration forms that were not available at the time of the provisional assessment order. These forms, they claimed, would impact the turnover and the amount in dispute. They also raised various other contentions regarding the assessment order. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Revenue. The learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue was heard, but their contentions are not detailed in the judgment.