9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1965X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erved as under: "....The dealer has availed tax exemption @4% on purchase of raw materials and Plant & Machinery against Form I-D (92) as detailed below. Purchase of raw Materials Notional tax. Iron ore and Dolomite- 1,27,38,559.70 Rs. 5,09,542.40 Plant & Machinery- 4,24,265.22 Rs. 16,970,60 Rs. 5,26,513.00 The dealer has also availed sales tax exemption on sale turnover of Rs. 73,05,269.00 @ 4%, which is computed to Rs. 2,92,210.76. Besides, the dealer has availed sales tax exemption under C.S.T. Act on sale turnover of Rs. 807,05,348/- @10% being not supported with "C" declaration forms, which is computed to Rs. 80,70,534.80. Thus, total tax exemption availed during the year under assessment comes to Rs. 88,89,258.56 or Rs. 88,89,259.00. The dealer has also availed tax exemption during the year 1996-97 on purchase of raw materials against declarations in Form I-D (92) amounting to Rs. 19,41,378.49 @4%. Further, the dealer has availed exemption on sale turnover of Rs. 17,654.00 under O.S.T. Act @4% and on sale turnover of Rs. 2,56,55,605.00 under C.S.T. Act @10% being not supported with declarations in Form 'C'. The total exemption availed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e opportunities allowed. Thus, notional tax on the said turnover is calculated @8% in view of observations made by the ld. ACST, Sundargarh Range, Rourkela vide order dated 29.11.2001. The detail calculation is as under: Purchases i. Raw materials Rs. 1,27,38,559.70 @4% Rs. 5,09,542.40 ii. Plant & Machinery Rs. 4,24,265.22 @4% Rs. 16,970.60 Rs. 5,26,513.00 Sales i. O.S.T. Rs. 73,05,269.00@4% Rs. 2,92,210.76 ii. C.S.T. Rs. 6,41,22,435.00 @4% Rs. 25,64,897.40 iii. -do- Rs. 1,65,82,913.00 8% Rs. 13,26,633.04 Rs. 41,83,741.20 G. Total Rs. 47,10,254.20 Thus, total tax exemption availed during the year under assessment comes to Rs. 47,10,254.20. The dealer has also allowed tax benefit to the tune of Rs. 11,04,585.50. The total sales tax exemption availed for both the year comes to Rs. 58,14,839.70 or Rs. 58,14,840.00 leaving balance amount of Rs. 3,36,41,463.00. The dealer is now assessed to nil for the year under assessment." However, in between the petitioner approached this Court by way of a writ petition wherein this Court in W.P.(C) No.1275 of 2005 while disposing the said writ petition on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lculation of the tax leading to initiation of proceeding under Rule 80 of the O.S.T. Rules. In our considered opinion, the petitioner dealer is entitled to get any opportunity of hearing and to place its case. Accordingly, we have no hesitation to set aside the order dated 11.1.2005 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Sundargarh Range, Rourkela under Rule 80 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rule for the assessment year, 1997-98 and direct the assesseepetitioner to appear before the said authority on 2nd May, 2005 and file its show cause. On its appearance on the date fixed, the Assessing Officer shall fix up the date of hearing and dispose of the matter within a period of two months from the date of appearance of the petitioner. The Assessing Officer shall act on production of the certified copy of this order." 6. The petitioner thereafter approached the revisional authority i.e. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Sundargarh Range, Rourkela under Rule 80 of the OST Act for assessment for the year, 1997-1998. The revisional authority after scrutinizing the re-assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer has passed the impugned order observing as under: ".....A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Revenue's contention is to make two exemptions "exemption or deferment" operate differently depending on their option. We are of the view that there exists no foundation for different treatment under the scheme itself, i.e., exemption or deferment. Therefore, in the absence of clear provision permitting different treatment to persons who opted for "exemption or deferment" on a fair and harmonious interpretation of statute such dichotomy has to be avoided. 16. Accordingly, we allow this tax revision in favour of the assessee by holding that the tax liability of the petitioner has to be reassessed and determined afresh in accordance with the provisions of the OST Act, requiring computation Of taxable turnover, in accordance with law, without reference to the exemption under the IPR, 1996. The re-computation be done in terms of our directions within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. 8. In that view of the matter and the basis on which the suo motu revision proceeding has been initiated by the revisional authority is now being reversed by this Court, therefore, though there are other contentions raised mainly on the ground t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
