1996 (6) TMI 344 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order passed by Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax under section 23(4)(e) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 read with rule 80 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 for setting aside an earlier assessment for the assessment year 1991-92.

Analysis:

1. The Assistant Commissioner set aside the assessment made by the Sales Tax Officer, citing under-assessment due to valuation discrepancies. The assessment was based on royalty values rather than actual purchase prices, leading to a significant increase in the demand raised by the revenue. The petitioner objected to the notice issued under section 23(4)(a) of the Act, claiming it was contrary to law based on previous court decisions. The Assistant Commissioner relied on a prior court decision to support the revisional order.

2. The petitioner argued that the Assistant Commissioner misconceived the issue and proceeded on erroneous premises. The petitioner contended that the levy of tax on alleged purchase price lacked legal sanction, as evidenced by a letter from the Divisional Forest Officer. The petitioner also claimed inadequate opportunity to present its case, highlighting multiple adjournments and a public holiday affecting the hearing dates.

3. The court considered the availability of alternative statutory remedies, emphasizing the general rule of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking writ relief. Exceptions to this rule include instances where the proceedings are ultra vires or violate natural justice principles. The court noted that the petitioner had an alternative remedy through an appeal to the Commissioner under section 23(4)(c) of the Act, which was deemed efficacious in this case.

4. Despite finding fault with the Assistant Commissioner's denial of adjournments, the court directed the petitioner to file an appeal within three weeks with an application for condonation of delay. The Commissioner was instructed to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. A previous interim order staying recovery of the extra demand was noted, with further recovery actions halted pending appeal disposal.

5. The writ application was disposed of accordingly, with no costs imposed. The original document was to be returned to the petitioner upon substitution with an attested copy. Both judges concurred with the decision to dispose of the writ application in the manner outlined.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the court's decision and reasoning.