TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 811X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... et aside with a request to the assessing authority of Cuttack I Range, Cuttack, to serve a fresh statutory notice on the petitioner and proceed with the matter for fresh assessment in accordance with law. - W.P. (C) Nos. 15401 of 2005 & W.P. (C) Nos. 10337,10338,10578 of 2006 & W.P. (C) Nos. 9032 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 6-8-2008 - CHAUHAN B.S. DR. C.J. AND MAHAPATRA B.N. , JJ. B.N. MAHAPATRA J. All these petitions have been filed by the petitioner, Satyam Construction, a proprietary concern. The petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 9032 of 2008 challenges the order of assessment dated May 9, 2007 passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack-1, West Circle, Cuttack (for short, the STO ) under section 42 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act for the tax period from April 1, 2005 to December 31, 2006 vide annexure A and the demand notice of even date (annexure 2) on the ground that the action of the STO in passing the impugned assessment order and issuing the demand notice is without jurisdiction. In W.P. (C) No. 15401 of 2005, W.P. (C) Nos. 10337 and 10338 of 2006 and W.P. (C) No. 10578 of 2006, the common grievance of the petitioner is that even though he is a dealer registered under the Orissa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is that the STO, who passed the impugned assessment order and issued the demand notice, is not the assessing authority as has been prescribed under sub-rule (12)(b) of rule 34 of the Orissa Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (for short, the Rules ). The second ground of challenge of the learned counsel is that since till the assessment order was passed the petitioner was not granted the certificate of registration under the Act as has been prescribed in subsection (5) of section 25 of the Act read with sub-rule (1) of rule 18 of the Rules, and no TIN number has been assigned under sub-rule (1) of rule 19 of the Rules, neither the STO, Cuttack-I, West Circle, Cuttack nor the assessing authority of the range has jurisdiction to initiate and complete audit assessment for the aforesaid tax period of the petitioner. Mr. Dalai, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, submitted that TIN number has been allotted to the petitioner and he has been assessed as a registered dealer under section 42 of the Act by the STO. He fairly conceded that the STO has no jurisdiction to assess a TIN dealer. A TIN dealer is assessable by the assessing authority of the range and accordingly opposite p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... writ petitions this averment has been made in paragraph 4.2. For ready reference, paragraph No. 4.2 is reproduced below: That the petitioner is registered as a dealer under the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Its registration numbers are TIN 21251203437 and CUICW-2678, respectively. Copy of the certificate of registration is enclosed and marked as annexures 2 and 2/A to this writ application. W.P. (C) No. 9032 of 2008 has been filed subsequent to filing of the remaining four writ petitions, wherein the petitioner averred that he is a registered dealer under the Act during the relevant tax period and has been assigned a TIN number and enclosed the copy of certificate of registration under the Act as annexure 2. Thus, the averments made in paragraph 1.1 of W.P. (C) No. 9032 of 2008 and in the other four writ petitions are selfcontradictory. As it appears, the petitioner in order to get his desired relief while in one writ petition describes himself as a dealer registered under OVAT Act having TIN number, in other writ petitions describes himself as an unregistered dealer under the Act as no TIN number has been assigned to h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) For the purpose of this rule, the assessing authority shall mean (a) the assessing authority of the circle in respect of dealers, who have been granted registration under sub-rule (1) of rule 18 and assigned with SRIN under sub-rule (4) of rule 19. (b) the assessing authority of the range in respect of dealers, who have been granted registration under sub-rule (1) of rule 18 and assigned with TIN under sub-rule (1) of rule 19. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that the dealer, who has been granted registration under sub-rule (1) of rule 18 and assigned TIN number under sub-rule (1) of rule 19 of the Rules, can only be assessed by the assessing authority of the range. Here the petitioner's own admission in the above four writ petitions is that he is a registered dealer under the Act and TIN number has also been allotted to him. The petitioner has annexed the copy of the certificate of registration under the Act to those writ petitions as annexure 2. In paragraph 4.3, he has stated that he is regularly filing the returns from the date when the Act has come into force, i.e., from April 1, 2005 till date. In that view of the matter, it is ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der the statutory provisions, the certificate in form VAT-103 cannot be issued even if there is a deeming provision and issuance of the certificate is automatic. In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to file information and declaration in form VAT-1 along with copy of this judgment before the registering authority within four weeks from today. After consideration of the same, the Revenue shall issue the certificate of registration to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter. In all the remaining four writ petitions, the grievance of the petitioner is that though he is a dealer registered under the OVAT Act having TIN No. 21251203437 as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 bearing registration No. CUICW-2678 the border check-gate officers are illegally collecting value added tax and entry tax on the goods purchased from outside the State. Even though several grounds have been taken challenging collection of tax under the impugned orders and issue of receipts in support of collection of such tax, learned counsel for the petitioner confined his submission to the effect that the petitioner being a registered dealer the amount of the tax collected under the O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
