TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 763X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SA HIGH COURT] it withheld the payment of entry tax. However, in the said decision handed down by this Court on 18th February 2008, the challenge to the validity of the OET Act was negatived. The Petitioner did not choose to join the Petitioners who had challenged the vires of the OET Act or even the requirement thereunder of having to pay entry tax on the goods purchased from outside the State - The decision of this Court was applicable to those who had approached it. Even, the interim order passed by the Supreme Court was confined to those parties who had approached the Court. The Petitioner could not have taken advantage of it. Therefore, the Petitioner had no reasonable cause to withhold payment of entry tax when it fell due. The Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 10 of the Orissa Entry Tax Act, 1999 (OET Act), reducing the tax demand from Rs.2,93,132.00 to Rs.1,46,566.00. 2. While admitting this revision petition on 6th July 2015, the following question was framed by this Court for consideration: Whether, under the facts and circumstance of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that penalty u/S.10 of the OET Act is chargeable when the dispute with regard to Levy of Tax on the goods in question is pending before the Apex Court and penalty is not mandatory? 3. The background facts are that the Petitioner is a unit, manufacturing PVC suction and Garden pipes. After receipt of the Vigilance Case Report dated 4th December, 2009 from the ACCT, Vigilance, Berhampur, the Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .48,855.34 under Section 7(5)(i) of the OET Act, as the Petitioner had arbitrarily withheld the tax. According to the Petitioner, thereafter, the Petitioner deposited the entire tax amount together with the interest. 6. Meanwhile, the State filed an appeal against the order of the DCST before the Tribunal urging that the DCST had deleted the penalty without any valid ground. The Petitioner also filed a cross-objection before the Tribunal. After hearing both the appeal as well as the cross-objection, the impugned order was passed by the Tribunal deleting the interest while confirming the tax and penalty as levied by the STO. 7. It must be noted that by the order dated 6th July, 2015, this Court directed that no coercive steps should be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under this section. 11. That can be no doubt that the levy of penalty does not have to be automatic. It is contingent on the STO being satisfied that the escapement of tax was without any reasonable cause . In the present case, the justification put forth by the Petitioner is that in terms of the decision of this Court in Reliance Industries Ltd. (supra) it withheld the payment of entry tax. However, in the said decision handed down by this Court on 18th February 2008, the challenge to the validity of the OET Act was negatived. The Petitioner did not choose to join the Petitioners who had challenged the vires of the OET Act or even the requirement thereunder of having to pay entry tax on the goods purchased from outside the State. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
