9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of Sales Tax on 31st May, 2022 along with the certified copy of this order. The Commissioner of Sales Tax may hear the matter on the said date or adjourn the matter to any other date for hearing - Petition disposed off. - W.P.(C) No. 11481 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 11-5-2022 - JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH AND JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN Petitioners Mr. Sanjeev Udgata, Advocate Opposite Parties Mr. Sunil Misra, ASC (CT GST Organization) ORDER (Oral) 1. This matter is taken up by virtual/physical mode. 2. The Petitioner, Tex Marketing Agency representing through its managing partner Sri Hariharan Balakrishnan, is before this Court invoking provisions of Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeks intervention in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection (1). 6. As the matter stood thus, the Petitioner was served with a notice to show cause bearing No.7875/CT dated 25th April, 2022 (Annexure-6) issued by the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax, CT GST Circle, Bhubaneswar-II, Bhubaneswar, whereby it was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.26,72,018/- (interest = Rs.68,539 /- + penalty = Rs.26,06,479/-) consequent upon rejection of petition under Section 17(7) by the Commissioner of Sales Tax. 7. The Petitioner has alleged in the writ petition that it was not afforded reasonable and adequate opportunity to represent before the Commissioner. As it had deposited entire tax liability as demanded and confirmed by the First Appellate Authority, the Commissioner of Sales Tax should hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 17(7) of the OET Act. However, the said Authority did not take up the matter for hearing. 10. Mr. Sunil Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel for CT and GST Organization submitted that though tax component out of the total demand raised in the assessment and confirmed by the Fist Appellate Authority stands deposited by the Petitioner, he has not deposited the rest of the demand constituting interest and penalty. He also submitted that as paragraph 30 of the Judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. Vrs. State of Odishha, (2008) 16 VST 85 (Ori) has been varied by the Hon ble Supreme Court in SLP Nos. 14454-14778 of 2008 (State of Odisha Vrs. Reliance Industries Ltd.), the Petitioner is liable to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
