Orissa High Court
Govinda Chandra Mohanty vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax And Ors. on 13 September, 1989
Equivalent citations: [1990]77STC209(ORISSA)
JUDGMENT P. C. Misra, J.
The Petitioner is a registered dealer tinder the Orissa Sales Tax Act carrying on the business of sale and purchase of goods. The sales tax payable by the petitioner was compounded under Rule 90-A of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947, which the petitioner alleges that he was paying regularly, A suo motu proceeding was initiated by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax of Balasore range under Section 23(4) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, read with Rule 80 of the Rules framed thereunder in which he enhanced tax to Rs. 1,477.89 or rounded to Rs. 1,478. The revisional authority taking the earlier sale turnover of the petitioner for the years 1970-71 and 1971-72 which was Rs. 17,773.83 and Rs. 16,874.19 respectively calculated the tax payable by the dealer for the aforesaid years at Rs. 1,377.47 and 1,307.72 respectively, the average of which works out to Rs. 1,342.59 payable for a year. Adding 10 per cent to the total amount of tax payable for the year by way of compounding, it came to Rs. 1,477.89 as stated above. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said revisional order before the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa, who by his order impugned in this writ application as annexure-6 confirmed the assessment made under annexure-4 and dismissed the appeal. The petitioner's grievance in this writ application is that he was not afforded adequate opportunity of presenting his case at both the levels. So far as the Assistant Commissioner is concerned, the petitioner has alleged that he was directed to appear before him on 22nd February, 1977, by a notice which reached him about two hours earlier. It has also been alleged that the petitioner applied for an adjournment and the matter was posted to 28th February, 1977, which, according to the petitioner, is also not sufficient, for getting ready in the matter. The Assistant Commissioner passed ex parte orders in the suo motu revision whereafter the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner. The case of the petitioner is that he filed an application before the Commissioner of Sales Tax to hear his case at Balasore Camp as he was an old man and was advised not to move long distance. He, however, sent written submissions to the Commissioner of Sales Tax. According to him, the Commissioner equally did not give opportunity to hear the petitioner at Balasore Camp and proceeded to dispose of the matter ex parte. From the narration of the facts made in the writ application it cannot be said that no opportunity Of being heard was given to the petitioner. As the petitioner received the notice a few hours earlier than the time fixed for hearing of the case on 22nd February, 1977, the Assistant Commissioner adjourned the matter to 28th of the said month. We find no justification in the argument of the petitioner that even then the time granted was too short to get ready in the case. The explanation for not attending the hearing before the commissioner of Sales Tax in the appeal as famished by the petitioner is also not satisfactory. As a matter of fact, the petitioner had sent the written note of his submissions and from the order of the Commissioner in annexure-8 we find that the said authority has taken note of the same. Apart from other considerations, we find that compounding of tax has been made on the basis of the figures submitted by the petitioner for the years 1970-71 and 1971-72. All that it appears to us is in the original compounding of tax the norm of calculation was defective which was rectified in exercise of the suo moto revisional power of the taxing authority. We, therefore, find no merit in this writ application which is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
K.C. Jagadeb Roy, J.
I agree.