9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 763X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the State and set aside an order dated 9th March, 2010 of the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax (JCST), partly allowing the appeal filed by the Assessee and modifying the assessment order of the Sales Tax Officer (STO), Ganjam-I Circle under 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion and therefore, there was no reasonable cause in terms of Section 10 (2) of the OET Act for penalty to be levied on the Petitioner. The DCST, by its order dated 9th March 2010, deleted the penalty but imposed interest of Rs.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 orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion (1) above] is without any reasonable cause, he may direct the dealer to pay in addition to the tax assessed under sub-section (1), by way of penalty, a sum equal to twice the amount of tax additionally assessed 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
