2022 (7) TMI 7

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he above impugned order, the Tribunal affirmed the order dated 20th September, 2005 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (ACST), Koraput Range confirming the Assessment Order passed by the Sales Tax Officer (STO) raising a demand of Rs.2,49,226/- for the year in question. 3. While issuing notice in the present revision petition on 11th January 2013, this Court has admitted the following substantial question of law: "I. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the mechanism of calculation of set off under Note-1 and Note-2 of List-C of OST Act in respect of Entry No.76 by forums below is correct in law?" 4. The background facts are that the Assessee has a manufacturing unit to produce Ferro Silicon and High .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... orders of the STO and ACST. 7. It has been factually found by the Tribunal that no document was filed by the Assessee to disprove the allegation of the assessing authority denying the set off in respect of consumable since there was no purchase invoice produced by the Assessee. Importantly, the Tribunal noted that although in the grounds of appeal the Assessee claimed to have documents he was willing to produce, in fact he failed to produce such documents to disprove the case of the Department. 8. As regards the applicability of the decision of this Court in Luis Packaging Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, [2010] 32 VST 481 (Ori), here again the Tribunal has dealt with the said question and concluded as under: "6. We have already quoted the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssessing authority. Because of this, we have no hesitation to conclude that the denial of set off benefit in respect of consumables for want of supporting and satisfactory invoice was justified." 9. Learned counsel for the Assessee was not able to dispute that the Assessee here is not claiming a benefit under any IPR and the question therefore of Assessee being entitled to benefit of exemption apart from the benefit under the IPR does not arise. Consequently, no fault can be found with the Tribunal for holding that the decision in Luis Packaging Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is not relevant to the case on hand. 10. The Court is not inclined to interfere as the orders impugned appear to have turned purely on facts and have not been shown to be pervers .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X