9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1987 (7) TMI 552 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues:
Assessment under Central Sales Tax Act and Orissa Sales Tax Act for the same transaction of sale. Analysis: The petitioner challenged assessments under both Central Sales Tax Act and Orissa Sales Tax Act for the same sale transaction. The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, purchased cylpebs from a supplier with declarations for resale in Orissa but sold them outside the state. The assessing officer held the petitioner liable under the Orissa Sales Tax Act for contravening declaration requirements. The validity of the relevant provision, section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii), was upheld in previous judgments, but it was clarified that sales prior to the amended declaration form's introduction were not covered. Therefore, only sales after April 26, 1978, could be subject to the Orissa Sales Tax Act. Analysis: Regarding the assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act, it was acknowledged that a single sale transaction cannot be taxed under both state and central laws. The court found that the sales were taxable under the State Act post-April 26, 1978, leading to the quashing of the assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act for that period. However, the petitioner was liable for assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act for sales before April 26, 1978. The assessing officer's misconception that the petitioner was not a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act was refuted with evidence of registration provided by the petitioner. Consequently, the assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act was deemed incorrect and set aside. Analysis: In conclusion, the High Court allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the assessment orders under both the Central Sales Tax Act and the Orissa Sales Tax Act. The assessing officer was directed to conduct fresh assessments for the year 1978-79 considering the court's discussions. No costs were awarded in this case. Both judges, Patnaik G.B. and Rath L., concurred with the decision to allow the writ petitions.
|
