Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (12) TMI 1138

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at all the delegation notifications including the one dated 15th May, 2009 specifically mentioned the prior approval obtained from the Government. However, when one peruses the notification dated 5 th June, 2018 in terms of which the CST delegated his power under Section 79(1) of the OVAT Act to the Addl. CST, reference is made only the earlier approval obtained on 30th April, 2009. That approval was not for delegation of the powers of the CST to the Addl. CST but delegation of the powers of the CST to the JCST. The observation of the CST in the impugned order that the Addl. CST, at the time when the suo motu revision order was passed on 6 th December 2018, was still exercising the powers of the JCST is also not factually correct. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... th March, 2019 passed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Odisha (CST) whereby the appeal filed by the present Petitioner-Assessee under Section 79 (7) of the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (OVAT Act) against the suo-motu revision order dated 12th July, 2018 passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Sales Tax (Addl.CST), Cuttack-II Range, Cuttack under Section 79(1) of the OVAT Act raising demand of Rs.7,99,848/- for the tax period 1st April, 2014 to 30th September, 2015 was dismissed. The challenge in the companion W.P. (C) 22064 of 2019 is to the consequential demand raised by the Assessing Authority (AA). 2. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. R.P. Kar, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. S.K. Pradhan, learned Addl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r was passed by this Court in the said writ petition: Heard learned counsel for the parties. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Odisha dated 06.12.2018, in Revision Case No.CU-29/V 2018-19, under Annexure-1, whereby the preliminary issue raised by the petitioner has been turned down. In our considered opinion, the point which has been raised by the petitioner prima facie appears to have force of law, but the same can be challenged along with other grounds after the Commissioner decides the appeal, if he feels aggrieved. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order at this stage. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nce the original assessment order under Section 42 of the OVAT Act was passed by the Sales Tax Officer (STO) as an AA, the revisional power could not have exercised by the Addl. CST against such an order. 9. As regards the first contention, the CST while rejecting the plea of the present Petitioner referred to an earlier approval of the Government granted on 30th April, 2009. It was further observed that at the time when the suo motu revisional order was passed, the notification of delegation had not yet been published and, therefore, the Addl. CST who passed a suo motu revisional power was still acting as a JCST. 10. This Court would like to first consider the correctness of the above conclusion of the CST vis- -vis the issue of prio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l. CST, reference is made only the earlier approval obtained on 30th April, 2009. That approval was not for delegation of the powers of the CST to the Addl. CST but delegation of the powers of the CST to the JCST. Consequently, that earlier approval of the 30th April, 2009 was not sufficient to justify the further delegation of powers to the Addl. CST more than 9 years later on 5th June, 2018. Clearly, therefore, the notification dated 5th June, 2018 was contrary to Section 5 of the OVAT Act read with Rule 5(2) of the OVAT Rules. 13. This Court is, therefore, unable to agree with the conclusion reached by the CST in the impugned order in the above regard. Further, there is no answer to the contention raised by the Petitioner-Assessee tha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates