TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oduce such documents to disprove the case of the Department. 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. 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 perverse or erroneous. Consequently, the question framed is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the Department and against the Assessee. Revision petition dismissed. - STREV No.87 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 28-6-2022 - DR. S. MURALIDHAR CHIEF JUSTICE AND R. K. PATTANAIK, JUDGE Petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of accounts. The STO did not accept the calculation adopted by the Assessee to claim a set off of Rs.2,74,907/- under the OST Rate Chart (C) Note-1 (a) and Note-2(VI). 5. The STO allowed the double set off of tax to the tune of Rs.25,681/-. The reason given by the STO for not accepting the set off claimed by the Assessee was that no accounts had been maintained by the Assessee but showed that raw materials purchased from inside the State of Orissa was used for manufacturing of the finished products sold inside the State at 8% on priority basis. This was in violation of Clause-VI of Note-2 of List C of the tax rate schedule which permitted proportionate deduction in case a dealer sells a part of his finished products in the course of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ute here. In the aforesaid Luis Packaging case, the dealer was availing benefit under IPR-1996 and their Lordships in consideration of law have held that in the absence of clear provision promoting different treatment to person who obtain for exemption or deferment, the computation of taxable turnover can be done under the OST Act without reference to the exemption under IPR, 1996. It is specifically held that the benefits under IPR-1996 were over and above what has provided for under the OST Act. 7. Having carefully gone through the aforesaid decision, we do not find any applicability to the dispute at hand. The law as prescribed under Note (I) and Note (2) of List-C as well as the rate of tax provided as per entry No.76 under list-C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
