9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax amounting to Rs. 5,62,834.45 paise and also enhancement of tax demand in lieu of tax determined. FACTS OF THE CASE : 2. Succinctly, facts of the case of the petitioner are stated below:- Petitioner is a registered dealer under the Act engaged in manufacturing, selling of bricks and used to maintain the books of accounts as required under section 15 of the Act. For the year ending 2001-2002, he has maintained the books of accounts by disclosing the gross turn over and the taxable turn over at Rs. 2, 93,328/- and Rs. 2,61,900/- respectively after deduction towards Sales tax calculated at Rs. 31,428/-. It was reported by the I.S.T.(Intelligence), Berhampur that during the year 2001-02 the petitioner has transported 340 trucks of bricks ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls namely, S.A. Nos. 416 and 654 of 2006-07 respectively before the Tribunal. In those appeals, learned Tribunal vide order dated 20.4.2009 held the petitioner guilty of under invoicing sale price of bricks for 259 truck load of bricks. Learned Tribunal observed that the petitioner has suppressed the sale price of those truck load of bricks at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- against Rs. 1,008/- per truck load of bricks. Learned Tribunal further held that the petitioner is guilty of suppressing sale of 340 truck load of bricks and price in respect of entire 340 truck load of bricks was being computed at Rs. 11,90,000/. Learned Tribunal found under-invoiced sale price of bricks and also sale suppression at the instance of the petitioner for which enh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eassessment of tax by remitting it to the assessing authority. 6. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the Revenue submitted that there is no merit in the appeal because the Revisional Court being not a fact finding court, cannot entertain the petition even if there is gross mistake in finding of facts of the petitioner. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal instead of allowing the appeal of the State in part, should have allowed the appeal in toto. However, the learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue supported the order of the Tribunal and prayed to dismissed the Revision filed by the petitioner. DISCUSSIONS : 7. We have heard the respective counsel, considered the documents filed by both the parties and also perused the decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no force in this regard. 9. Section 24(1) of the Act enshrines in the following manner : "24. Revision by High Court :- (1) Within sixty days from the date of receipt of the copy of an order of the Tribunal under sub-section(3) of Section 23 affecting any liability of a dealer to pay tax under this Act, or within sixty days of coming into force of the Orissa Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 2000 for the cases pending before Tribunal for reference to High Court as on the date of coming into force of the said Act, such dealer or, as the case may be, the State Government may prefer a petition to the High Court against the order on the ground that the Tribunal has either ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
