TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 459X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued beyond the period of limitation and that too, not in statutory Form 307, is non-est in the eyes of law. We order accordingly and direct refund of any amount that may be due to the petitioner along with the statutory interest as may be applicable in terms of Section 59 of the Act within a period of three months - Decided in favour of assessee. - W.P.(C) No.22697 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 30-3-2015 - Indrajit Mahanty And B. N. Mahapatra,JJ. For the Petitioner : M/s. Jagabandhu Sahoo, Sr. Adv. A. Mohapatra, D.Panda, B.K.Nayak, S.C.Mohanty. For the Respondent : Mr. R. P. Kar (Standing Counsel) ORDER I. Mahanty, J. The present writ application has been filed by the petitionercompany seeking direction to Opposite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 of the Act. This notice was brought on record by way of an amendment sought for by the petitioner during pendency of the writ application. 4. The petitioner places reliance on Section 49 of the OVAT Act, 2004 which is quoted hereinbelow: 49(1) Where any order passed by the assessing authority in respect of a dealer for any period is found to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue consequent to, or in the light of, any judgment or order of any Court or Tribunal, which has become final and binding, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the assessing authority may proceed to reassess the tax payable by the dealer in accordance with such judgment or order, at any time within a period of three years from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht to be allowed. 6. Mr.Kar, learned Standing Counsel for the Commercial Tax Department submits that the Sales Tax Tribunal in its order dated 2.5.2009, appended as Annexure-1 to the writ application, did not adjudicate the matter on merits and instead, came to a conclusion that the Sales Tax Officer (Opposite Party No.1) not being the Assessing Authority of the Range as required under Rule 34(12) of the OVAT Rules (pre-amendment) had no jurisdiction to assess the dealer under Section 43(1) of the OVAT Act. Consequently, he submits that this was not adjudication by the Tribunal on merits of the case but only a judgment of the Tribunal based on the lack of inherent jurisdiction of the Officer who had passed the assessment order under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
