Sohanlal Laxminarayan vs. Sales Tax Officer, Bargarh Circle

Heard Mr. Jagabandhu Sahoo, learned Sr. Advocate for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Department.

By way of this writ petition, petitioner has mainly prayed for following relief:

“(1) To call upon the opposite parties as to why the audit visit report in form VAT-303 dated 11.09.2018 as well as notice of demand in form VAT-303A issued by the O.P. No.1 vide Annexure-6 shall not be quashed.

(2) To direct the O.P. No.1 and other opp. Parties as may be necessary to consider the explanation offered by representation dated 16.08.2018 vide Annexure-5 and thereafter determine tax liability, if any, afresh.

(3) To direct the opposite party not to take any coercive action pursuant to the Audit Visit Report and notice of demand vide Annexure-6 till disposal of this writ petition.”

The main contention of the petitioner is that while filing return for the period from 01.01.2014 to 31.03.2014, petitioner was entitled exemption under Clause 55 of Form VAT-201 to the tune of Rs.20,85,140/-. However, while filing return for the subsequent period i.e. 01.04.2014 to 30.06.2014, through oversight, the said credit was shown as Rs. 2,38,560/- and thus the Input Tax Credit (ITC) was on higher side, which was approximately Rs. 18,46,580/-

The opposite party-Department has taken a stand in its reply that the authority is not supposed to allow credit of Input tax during the period 01.01.2015 to 30.06.2017 when the W.P.(C) No. 17742 of 2018

-2- alleged claim relates to the period of 01.01.2014 to 31.03.2014. Relying on the provisions contained in Section 33(4) of the OVAT Act, it is further stated by the opposite party- Department that where, after filing a return a mistake is noticed, provision is there for amending the same by way of filing a revised return within a period of three months following the tax period to which the original return relates. The petitioner should have filed the same in consonance with the said provisions, but the petitioner having not acted as per the said statutory provisions, he cannot claim the benefit under it.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, in our considered opinion, the mistake of the petitioner appears to be a bona fide one and therefore, the authority is required to consider the same in accordance with law and it is made clear that even the finding is given against the petitioner as per law, penalty shall not be imposed considering the mistake as bona fide one.

With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition stands disposed.

AD

.…….......……………… ( K.S. Jhaveri ) Chief Justice

…………………..……… (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge