9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se out of the common order dated 17th December, 2007 passed by the Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal, Cuttack dismissing the Petitioner's appeal, i.e. S.A. No.420-421 of 2001-02 for the years 1996-97 and 1997-98. The Tribunal accordingly upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, (ACST), Balasore Range, Balasore dated 31st March, 2001. 3. While admitting these two revision petitions on 7th September, 2009, the following questions of law was framed by this Court. "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Sales Tax Tribunal is justified to hold repairing/assembling of transformer to be not eligible for sales tax exemption under Entry 30- FFF of the tax free schedule ?" 4. As an interim measure, it was directed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 12(8) of the OST Act reportedly on the basis of an objection by the A.G., Audit. It was alleged that the Petitioner had been engaged in repairing of power transformers of GRIDCO, and that since it was not manufacturing power transformers, the grant of sales tax exemption was not proper. 8. In the re-assessment order the AO adopted the view of the Audit Officer and observed that the Petitioner was repairing electrical transformers of the GRIDCO by utilizing the materials; that the nature of business constitutes 'works contract' and therefore sales tax exemption was not allowable in favour of the Petitioner. The reassessment orders were passed on dated 22nd September, 1999 in respect of both the years, i.e. 1996-97 and 1997-98. Deam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in Bajrangballi Wire Products v. State of Orissa (decision dated 20th April, 2021 in STREV No.28 of 2006) followed the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Vadilal Chemicals Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2005) 5 R.C. 295, and held that the sales tax authority could not have ignored the DIC certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner to deny sales tax benefit in terms of the IPR. 15. In the instant case the Tribunal was in error in ignoring the DIC certificate. The permanent registration certificate clearly mentioned repairing of transformers as one of the activities. This certificate had to be read with the eligibility certificate to understand the activities for which the Petitioner was granted exemption. 16. Consequently t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
