1961 (6) TMI 19 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of amounts under section 9-B(3) during assessment proceedings under section 12.
2. Recovery of assessed amounts through demand notice under section 13(4).

Analysis:

Issue 1: Assessment of amounts under section 9-B(3) during assessment proceedings under section 12
The case involved a dealer-assessee being assessed under section 12(2)(b) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act for sales of mill-made cloth. The question was whether the sales qualified as first-point-sales. The assessing officer and Assistant Collector determined the sales to be first-point-sales and held the assessee liable to deposit sales tax collected from customers under section 9-B(3). The Tribunal, however, directed a fresh assessment due to amendments in the Act. The Court clarified that the Revenue authorities can identify amounts due under section 9-B(3) during assessment but cannot assess the dealer-assessee for those amounts. The authorities only need to ascertain the amount to be deposited in the Government Treasury.

Issue 2: Recovery of assessed amounts through demand notice under section 13(4)
Regarding the recovery of assessed amounts through a demand notice under section 13(4), the Court examined the relevant forms and provisions. Form No. 9 and 10 did not apply as there was no determination of tax under section 9-B(3). The Court concluded that the Revenue authorities cannot direct the recovery of such amounts through a demand notice under section 13(4) as it is not a tax assessed under the Act. Therefore, the Court answered the latter part of the question in the negative, stating that there would be no order for costs.

In conclusion, the Court clarified that while the Revenue authorities can identify amounts due under section 9-B(3) during assessment proceedings, they cannot assess the dealer-assessee for those amounts. Additionally, recovery of such amounts through a demand notice under section 13(4) is not permissible as it does not constitute a tax assessed under the Act. The reference was answered accordingly by the Court, with agreement from Justice R.K. Das.