2022 (5) TMI 1192 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Violation of principles of natural justice - non-affording of reasonable and adequate opportunity to represent before the Commissioner - HELD THAT - This Court is satisfied that the Petitioner has been diligently pursuing its matter (apparent from documents act Annexure-8 series. It was given short notice for appearing before the Commissioner of Sales Tax in connection with hearing and the nonappearance was on account of non-availability of his lawyer in the station, which fact remained uncontroverted at the time of hearing of present petition. The Petitioner is directed to appear before the Commissioner of Sales Tax on 31st May, 2022 along with the certified copy of this order. The Commissioner of Sales Tax may hear the matter on the said date or adjourn the matter to any other date for hearing - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to assessment order under Odisha Entry Tax Act, 1999 - Invocation of Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India - Appeal before Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax - Second appeal before Odisha Sales Tax Tribunal - Application for stay of realization of demand - Notice to show cause for depositing amount - Allegation of lack of opportunity to represent before Commissioner of Sales Tax - Non-appearance due to unavailability of lawyer - Discharge of liability by depositing interest and penalty - Setting aside ex parte order and restoration of revision case to file.

Analysis:

1. Challenge to Assessment Order under Odisha Entry Tax Act, 1999:
The Petitioner, Tex Marketing Agency, challenged the assessment order dated 27.04.2015 raising a demand under the Odisha Entry Tax Act, 1999. The Petitioner availed the remedy of appeal before the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, which was dismissed. Subsequently, a second appeal was filed before the Odisha Sales Tax Tribunal along with an application for stay of realization of the demand.

2. Allegation of Lack of Opportunity to Represent Before Commissioner of Sales Tax:
The Petitioner alleged in the writ petition that they were not given a reasonable opportunity to represent before the Commissioner of Sales Tax. It was contended that the Commissioner should have considered the facts of the case and directed for a stay of realization of the demanded amount during the pendency of the second appeal before the Odisha Sales Tax Tribunal.

3. Non-Appearance Due to Unavailability of Lawyer:
The Petitioner, represented by Mr. Sanjeev Udgata, claimed that on various occasions before the COVID-19 pandemic, they were vigilant and present for the hearings before the Commissioner of Sales Tax. However, due to the unavailability of their lawyer on a specific date during the pandemic, they were unable to appear before the Commissioner, resulting in the matter being proceeded ex parte.

4. Discharge of Liability by Depositing Interest and Penalty:
The Additional Standing Counsel for CT and GST Organization argued that the Petitioner had not deposited the full demand amount, including interest and penalty. Referring to a judgment, it was contended that the Petitioner was liable to discharge the entire liability by depositing the interest and penalty along with the tax component.

5. Setting Aside Ex Parte Order and Restoration of Revision Case:
The Court, after considering the submissions and circumstances, set aside the ex parte order passed in the revision case and directed the Petitioner to appear before the Commissioner of Sales Tax. The Commissioner was instructed to hear the matter and pass an appropriate order without undue adjournments, ensuring justice is served in accordance with the law.

This detailed analysis covers the key issues involved in the legal judgment delivered by the Orissa High Court, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case and the Court's decision.