Orissa High Court
M/S. Paradeep Phosphates Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Sales Tax on 24 April, 2025
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.22449 of 2024
M/s. Paradeep Phosphates Ltd., .... Petitioner
Khordha
Represented by Adv.-
Mr. Bibekananda Mohanti, Senior Advocate
along with Mr. S.S. Ali, Advocate
-Versus-
The Commissioner of Sales Tax, .... Opposite Parties
Odisha and another
Represented by Adv.-
Mr. Sunil Mishra, Standing Counsel for CT & GST
CORAM:
HON' BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
Order No. 24.04.2025
01. I.A. No.11493 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.22449 of 2024
1. An assessment for the tax period from 1st April, 2005 to 28th February, 2006 was framed vide order dated 2nd August, 2006 under Section 9C of the Odisha Entry Tax Act, 1999 (in short „OET Act‟). Against the said order of assessment an appeal was preferred by the assessee which culminated in setting aside the said assessment vide order dated 16th July, 2019 with an observation that adverse materials supplied by the Intelligence Range, Cuttack could be utilized as escaped turnover to make reassessment under Section 10 of the OET Act instead of resorting to assessment under Section 9C of the OET Act and, accordingly, direction was given Page 1 of 4 to initiate proper proceedings "strictly in accordance with the provisions of OET Act and Rules made thereunder".
2. It is submitted by Mr. Bibekananda Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that after passage of period of limitation contained in Section 10(3) of OET Act, the department has scrutinized the self-assessment returns relating to the aforesaid period under assessment and accepted the same. Thereafter, the assessing officer issued notice for reassessment under Section 10 of the OET Act. Such a recourse to initiate assessment is impermissible in the eye of law. He would further submit that after the first appellate authority has set aside the assessment framed under Section 9C, for the purpose of issue of notice and proceed with the reassessment proceeding under Section 10, the assessing authority could not assume jurisdiction as limitation specified under Section 10 has already set in. Therefore, he submits that entire proceeding under Section 10 gets vitiated.
3. Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the CT & GST Organisation submitted that as per Section 49(2) of the Odisha Value Added Tax Act, 2004 the Appellate Authority can be construed as a "Court" so as to have the authority to proceed with Section 10 of the OET Act in terms of the period of limitation Page 2 of 4 specified under said provision instead of 10(3) of the OET Act. Since the Appellate Authority has directed the authority concerned to proceed in accordance with provisions of the statute, no illegality could be imputed against the action of the Assessing Authority inasmuch as after scrutiny of returns and acceptance of the self-assessment, in order to utilize the intelligence report he initiated proceeding under Section 10 of the OET Act. To expand his submission, it is argued that notice under Section 10 of the OET Act in Form E-32 has been served on the assessee after scrutiny of returns for the tax periods from 1st April, 2005 to 28th February, 2006 and acceptance of which was duly intimated to the assessee prior to initiation of the reassessment proceeding pursuant to direction of Appellate Authority. Therefore, he requested for dismissal of the writ petition.
4. In view of the aforesaid submissions, this Court is now called upon to decide whether the limitation specified in Section 49(2) of the Odisha Value Added Tax Act can be made applicable so that the limitation specified in Section 10(3) of the OET Act is construed to be extended. When the Appellate Authority directed to initiate proper proceeding, having set aside the Assessment framed under Section 9C of the OET Act, the Assessing Authority Page 3 of 4 could initiate the proceeding under Section 10 after scrutiny of self-assessment returns for the tax periods from 01.04.2005 to 28.02.2006.
5. Issue notice. Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of the opposite parties. Let adequate numbers of copies of writ petition be served on him within three working days.
6. Counter affidavit be filed within four weeks by the opposite parties serving a copy thereof on Mr. S.S. Ali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
7. List the matter on 19th June, 2025.
8. Since this Court finds prima facie case in the matter, as an interim measure, the authorities are restrained from taking any coercive measures pursuant to order dated 12th July, 2024 passed under Annexure-9.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed (M.S. Raman)
Signed by: SANJAY KUMAR JENA
Designation: SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication Judge
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 25-Apr-2025 16:28:12
S.K. Jena/Secy.
S.K. Behera
Page 4 of 4