TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was for manufacturing/ processing of goods for sale in mining/generation or distribution of electricity or any form of power. There was no mention of the goods having been purchased for being used as packing materials. As pointed out, even assuming the purchasing dealer was going to use the goods so purchased for any other purpose i.e. a purpose other than that disclosed in the above declaration in Form IV, the Revenue s interest would not be prejudiced since in any event the purchasing dealer would be liable to pay the differential rate of tax as per the 2nd proviso to Section 5 (1) of the OST Act. In TILAKRAJ MEDIRATTA VERSUS STATE OF ORISSA [ 1992 (2) TMI 338 - ORISSA HIGH COURT] this Court explained that once the buying/purchasing d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... REV No. 63 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 5-7-2022 - S. MURALIDHAR CHIEF JUSTICE AND R.K. PATTANAIK, JUDGE Advocates, appeared in this case : For Petitioner : Mr. Jagabandhu Sahoo Senior Advocate For Opposite Party : Mr. S.K. Pradhan Additional Standing Counsel JUDGMENT Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ. 1. The present revision petition by the Assessee arises from an order dated 19th November, 2010 passed by the Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal, Cuttack (Tribunal) dismissing the Assessee s appeal in S.A. No.1955 of 2005-06 for the period 2001-02. 2. By the impugned order the Tribunal affirmed the order dated 18th November, 2005 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (ACST), Cuttack Range-II, Cuttack in Appeal No.AA 498/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that the verification of the declaration form revealed that they were not true declaration forms as they mentioned packing of goods which had been deleted from Form IV with effect from 1st April, 2001. Since the goods were subject to tax at the first point of sale, it became the duty of the seller to check the declaration form and the registration certificate of the purchasing dealer prior to the sale. Therefore, the declaration in Form IV was disallowed. 5. Aggrieved, the Assessee went in appeal before the ACST, who by an order dated 18th November, 2005 dismissed the appeal. It was concluded that the selling dealer was not entitled to sell the packing materials for sale against Form IV since they stood excluded from that benefit wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng dealer would be liable to pay the differential rate of tax as per the 2nd proviso to Section 5 (1) of the OST Act. 8. In Tilakraj Mediratta v. State of Orissa (1992) 86 STC 453 (Orissa) this Court explained that once the buying/purchasing dealer furnishes the declaration in Form IV that he intends to use the size goods for manufacture/processing of goods for sale, the legal obligation of the selling dealer ceases. Any contravention by the purchasing dealer of the above declaration would result in the purchasing dealer being made liable and not the selling dealer. 9. Applying the ratio of the above decision to the case on hand, it is seen that the declaration in Form IV does not disclose the intention of the purchasing dealer to use ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
