9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed in the first appeal by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeal) Balasore (ACST)(Appeal) against an admitted liability of Rs. 79,44,056/- payable by the Petitioner towards interest levied under the Orissa Entry Tax Act (OET Act). 2. The background facts are that the Petitioner is a unit of Kesoram Industries and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of tyres, tubes and flaps. It has its factory at Chhanpur in Balasore district. 3. For the period 1st April, 2006 to 31st March, 2007 the Petitioner was assessed under the CST Act. By an order dated 5th September, 2008 a demand of Rs. 1,12,91,853/- was raised against the Petitioner of which the tax component was Rs. 37,63,951/- and the remaining was towards penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er under the CST Act against the interest payable under the OET Act is entirely without jurisdiction and further that it has been done unilaterally without any notice to the Petitioner. Mr. Ray, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Petitioner further contends that there is no provision akin to Section 226 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which envisages garnishee proceedings whereby the dues of an Assessee could be sought to be recovered from some other amount owed to it in separate proceedings. He points out that here the refund was due to the Petitioner under the CST Act and there is no provision under the OET Act which permits adjustment of the CST tax refund against the liability of interest under the OET Act. 7. Mr. Mishra, learned Addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petitioner under the CST Act is not meant for adjustment, and that too unilaterally by Opposite Party No.2 against the interest payable under the OET Act. There being a 'charge' is very different from straightaway recoevrring the sum even without a notice. 9. Mr. Mishra sought to justify such adjustment by contending that the Opposite Party No.2 was the same authority exercising powers both under the CST Act as well as the OET Act. While it may be correct that it is the same person who exercises powers under both the Acts, but the functions performed as an Assessing Officer under the CST Act is distinguishable from the functions performed under the OET Act. Theoretically, it is possible that two different persons could be exercising these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
