9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Rule 94 of the OST Rules. There is no reason why the said payment of tax should not have been given credit for while determining the tax payable by the Dealer. There is merit in the contention that the same transaction cannot by subject to sales tax twice over, one at the hands of the transporter and another at the hands of the Dealer - In that view of the matter, the enhancement of the taxable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r appropriate case, the Court declines to answer it in the present revision petition. The revision petition is disposed of. - STREV No.78 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 16-3-2022 - (DR. S. MURALIDHAR) CHIEF JUSTICE (R. K. PATTANAIK ) JUDGE Petitioner Mr. Jagabandhu Sahoo, Senior Advocate Opposite Party Mr. Sidharth Shankar Padhy, ASC ORDER 1. Admit. 2. The following two que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s etc. In the year 1994-95, while readymade garments were being plied from Calcutta to Rourkela, the trucks were intercepted by the Sales Tax Vigilance wing of Balasore Division at the Chaksuliapada check post. The dealer s transport agent allegedly failed to produce the relevant documents leading to the collection of tax at the check post in respect of two way bills, in terms of Rule 94 of the OS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vember, 2003 in S.A. No.2419 of 1996-97. 6. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Jagabandhu Sahoo, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, and Mr. Sidharth Shankar Padhy, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Department. 7. Mr. Sahoo referred to the decision of this Court in Sri Vinayak Store v. Sales Tax Officer, [1992] 86 STC 423(Ori) and contended that it was i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be sustained and is hereby deleted. 10. Question (i) framed by this Court is answered in the negative, i.e. in favour of the Petitioner-Assessee and against the Department by holding that the same transactions covered by the two consignment notes in question cannot be treated as suppression on the part of the Dealer and cannot be taxed twice over. 11. Turning now to the question (ii) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
