Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

State Of Orissa vs M/S. Driplex Water Engineering (P) .... ... on 4 July, 2022

Author: R. K. Pattanaik

Bench: R. K. Pattanaik

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                               STREV No.141 of 2011

            State of Orissa, represented by      ....           Petitioner
            Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa,
            Cuttack
                                                  Mr. Sunil Mishra, ASC
                                        -versus-
            M/s. Driplex Water Engineering (P) ....        Opposite Party
            Ltd., Angul
                                                                   None

                       CORAM:
                       THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                       JUSTICE R. K. PATTANAIK
                                       ORDER

04.07.2022 Order No.

03. 1. The present revision petition has been filed questioning inter alia an order dated 7th June, 2011 passed by the Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal, Cuttack (Tribunal) in S.A. Nos.1323, 1324 and 1325 of 2001-02 whereby the aforementioned appeals filed by the Opposite Party were allowed.

2. The reasoning for the impugned order is contained in para 5 of the impugned order where relying on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Gannon Dunkerley & Co. v. State of Rajasthan, (1993) 88 STC 204 (SC), it was held that goods purchased through inter-State sale and utilized in a works contract will be excluded from levy of sales tax as the State is not competent to impose tax on such goods in terms of Entry 54 Page 1 of 2 of the State List read with Article 366 (29-A)(b) of the Constitution of India.

3. Having heard learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Department, the Court is not persuaded that the Tribunal has committed any error in coming to the above conclusion.

4. Accordingly, no substantial question of law arises. The petition is dismissed.

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice (R. K. Pattanaik) Judge M. Panda Page 2 of 2