TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... undertaking and further its assertion that since its factory is located in the Grampanchayat area, and is exempted from payment of Entry Tax, has remained uncontroverted and in fact accepted by NALCO. The Court directs that on the strength of the present order, it will be open to the Petitioner No.1 to apply to the Opposite Party-State to seek refund of the aforementioned sum of ₹ 47,969.26, which has been collected from it by NALCO and deposited with the Government of Odisha. Since there is no dispute that the aforementioned sum has in fact been collected from Petitioner No.1, there should be no difficulty in the refund being made to the Petitioner No.1 by the State Government on the strength of the present order - If the applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 999 (OET Act). It is stated that in terms of Rule 3 (4) of the Orissa Entry Tax Rules, 1999 (OET Rules), Aluminium ingots used as raw material, on first entry in a local area, other than a municipality or municipal corporation or notified area council (NAC), shall not be exigible to Entry Tax. 4. It is further pointed out that by a Circular dated 25th May, 2000, the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (General) Orissa (ACCT) directed NALCO, the Rourkela Steel Plant and other manufacturers to allow the benefit of the concession granted under Rule 3 (4) of the OET Rules to the purchasing manufacturers after obtaining the written undertaking to the effect that they satisfy the norms and further that they would be liable to pay the E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... OEC0251 4.9.2000 ₹ 8,73,289/- ₹ 8646.42 6. OEC0298 28.9.2000 ₹ 7,34,047/- ₹ 7267.80 ₹ 47,969.26 7. It is therefore contended that the aforementioned sum of ₹ 47,969.26 collected from the Petitioner No.1 as Entry Tax ought not to have been collected and that the aforementioned sum is in fact refundable to the Petitioner. 8. Despite notice in the petition having been issued way back on 24th August, 2000, the State of Odisha has not filed a reply. Only NALCO has filed a preliminary counter affidavit an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion or undertaking submitted by the buying dealer is otherwise found not tenable in law. 6. That is most respectfully submitted that NALCO has no adverse interest, whatsoever, contrary or in conflicts with the interest of the petitioner but seeks the intervention of this Hon ble Court to the limit of extending safe-guarding the interest and/or preventing the possibility of any adverse action and/or demand against NALCO in the event of its acceptance of the undertaking by the buying dealers. 9. Additionally, in reply to the additional affidavit of the Petitioner No.1, NALCO has confirmed that the Entry Tax collected by it from the Petitioner No.1 has been deposited by it to the State of Odisha. 10. As already noted, for more ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... later than 15th March, 2022. If there is any delay in making the refund, the State Government would be liable to pay the Petitioner No.1 an additional simple interest of 6% per annum for the period of delay. 13. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. 14. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court s Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020, modified by Notice No.4798, dated 15th April, 2021, and Court s Office Order circulated vide Memo Nos. No.514 and 515 dated 7th January ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
