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

M/S Agrawal Spices & Food vs Dy. Commissioner Of Sales Tax And ..... ... on 22 April, 2024

Bench: B.R. Sarangi, G. Satapathy

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                            W.P (C) No. 12779 of 2017
                                       And
                    W.P.(C) Nos. 12780, 21226 and 21228 of 2017



M/s Agrawal Spices & Food             .....                                  Petitioner
Processors Pvt. Ltd.
                                                     Mr. J. Sahoo, Sr. Adv. along with
                                                               Ms. Kajal Sahoo, Adv.
                                      Vs.
Dy. Commissioner of Sales Tax and     .....                            Opposite Parties
others                                            Mr. Sunil Mishra, Standing Counsel,
                                                                             Revenue

             CORAM:
                 DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
                 MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

                                             ORDER

22.04.2024 Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

06.

2. Heard Mr. J. Sahoo, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Ms. Kajal Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue.

3. The sole question raised before this Court that after remand made on 22.05.2013 under Annexure-3 by the 1st Appellate Authority to the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer should have acted with all promptitude to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. But, instead of disposing of the same, he slept over the matter and issued notice of show cause under Annexure-4 on 06.10.2016, after more than three years of remand order, to which the petitioner also filed reply. But the Assessing Officer observed that he has got power under Section 49 (2) of the OVAT Act and, as such, the limitation can be extended for five years. The provisions contained under Section 49 (2) are not applicable to the present case, rather the provisions contained under Page 1 of 2 Section 77 (7) are applicable, which prescribe two years for disposal after remand to the Assessing Officer.

4. Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue contended that Section 77 (7) is not applicable to the present case because it was inserted to the statute on 01.10.2015 and, therefore, it will apply prospectively. Since the remand order was passed on 22.05.2013, the Assessing Officer has to dispose of the matter in terms of the law available at the relevant point of time, which he wants to satisfy on the next date by brining certain provisions to the notice of the Court.

5. On his request, list this matter after one week.

6. Interim order passed earlier shall continue till the next date.





                                                                         (DR. B.R. SARANGI)
                                                                               JUDGE



              Ashok                                                       (G. SATAPATHY)
                                                                               JUDGE




Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed

Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 23-Apr-2024 16:08:42 Page 2 of 2