9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at it has fulfilled the requirements of the Circular dated 25th May, 2000 of the ACCT, and has furnished the requisite undertaking and further its assertion that since its factory is located in the Grampanchayat area, and is exempted from payment of Entry Tax, has remained uncontroverted and in fact accepted by NALCO. The Court directs that on the strength of the present order, it will be open to the Petitioner No.1 to apply to the Opposite Party-State to seek refund of the aforementioned sum of 47,969.26, which has been collected from it by NALCO and deposited with the Government of Odisha. Since there is no dispute that the aforementioned sum has in fact been collected from Petitioner No.1, there should be no difficulty in the refund bein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edule to the Orissa Entry Tax Act, 1999 (OET Act). It is stated that in terms of Rule 3 (4) of the Orissa Entry Tax Rules, 1999 (OET Rules), Aluminium ingots used as raw material, on first entry in a local area, other than a municipality or municipal corporation or notified area council (NAC), shall not be exigible to Entry Tax. 4. It is further pointed out that by a Circular dated 25th May, 2000, the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (General) Orissa (ACCT) directed NALCO, the Rourkela Steel Plant and other manufacturers to allow the benefit of the concession granted under Rule 3 (4) of the OET Rules to the purchasing manufacturers after obtaining the written undertaking to the effect that they satisfy the norms and further that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espite notice in the petition having been issued way back on 24th August, 2000, the State of Odisha has not filed a reply. Only NALCO has filed a preliminary counter affidavit and a further reply to the Petitioner's additional affidavit in both of which, the contention of the Petitioner No.1 is not contested. In fact there is a categorical statement in paras 4 to 6 of the preliminary counter affidavit of the NALCO as under: "4. That in response to the Opp. Party no.1's letter vide Annexure-1/B, the C.T.O., Dhenkanal Circle vide his letter No.7246 dated 27.7.2000 accepted the form of undertaking to be submitted by the manufacturing buyers for exemption of entry tax, a copy of which is annexed herewith as Annexure-1/C. 5. That it is subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , NALCO has confirmed that the Entry Tax collected by it from the Petitioner No.1 has been deposited by it to the State of Odisha. 10. As already noted, for more than two decades now, no reply has been filed by the State of Odisha to the present petition and, therefore, the Court proceeds on the basis that the averments of the Petitioner No.1 remain uncontroverted by the State of Odisha. The assertion of Petitioner No.1 that it has fulfilled the requirements of the Circular dated 25th May, 2000 of the ACCT, and has furnished the requisite undertaking and further its assertion that since its factory is located in the Grampanchayat area, and is exempted from payment of Entry Tax, has remained uncontroverted and in fact accepted by NALCO. 11. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
