9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 647X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Programme (WFP) Project falls under Entry 30HH of the Tax Free List, and therefore no such exemption would be sought for and made available to the Petitioner. The argument that no purchase tax can be levied on paddy does not impress the Court. There is no complete ban on the imposition of purchase tax. In fact Section 3-B expressly permits levy of purchase tax on certain classes of goods. The view taken by the Tribunal in the present case, which is in favour of the Department and against the Assessee, does not appear to suffer from any illegality - the purchase tax is indeed leviable on the equivalent paddy out of which rice was sold to WFP, which sales may be exempt under Entry 30HH of List-a of the Schedule of rates under the OST ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first post goods being exempted by notification under Section 6 of the OST Act under Entry- 30HH of List-a whether paddy used as input is subject to levy of purchase tax? iii. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case levy of interest under Section 12(4-a) of the OST Act is lawful and valid? 3. As far as questions (i) and (ii) are concerned, the contention urged by Mr. Jagabandhu Sahoo, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner is that paddy is a declared goods in terms of Section 14(1) (i) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with Article 286 (3) of the Constitution of India and Section 3-B of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (OST Act) and therefore no purchase tax as such is leviable on the purchase of paddy. He poi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an be levied on paddy does not impress the Court. There is no complete ban on the imposition of purchase tax. In fact Section 3-B expressly permits levy of purchase tax on certain classes of goods. The proviso only states that no tax shall be payable on the sales of such goods.... declared under this Section. 7. Mr. Sahoo drew the attention of the Court to the following observations in Dhirendranath Das v. State of Orissa, (1970) 26 STC 522: 6. What Mr. Bhattacharya wants to contend is that if the sale of the fish by the assessee in the aforesaid case in Calcutta could not be taxed, then the purchase of the fish inside Orissa for exporting them to Calcutta for sale cannot be taxed by virtue of Section 3-B of the Act. For reaso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
