9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e under Section 79 (7) of the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (OVAT Act) against the suo-motu revision order dated 12th July, 2018 passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Sales Tax (Addl.CST), Cuttack-II Range, Cuttack under Section 79(1) of the OVAT Act raising demand of Rs.7,99,848/- for the tax period 1st April, 2014 to 30th September, 2015 was dismissed. The challenge in the companion W.P. (C) 22064 of 2019 is to the consequential demand raised by the Assessing Authority (AA). 2. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. R.P. Kar, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. S.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the Opposite Party-Department. 3. The facts in brief are that the Petitioner is a dealer registered under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner has challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Odisha dated 06.12.2018, in Revision Case No.CU-29/V 2018-19, under Annexure-1, whereby the preliminary issue raised by the petitioner has been turned down. In our considered opinion, the point which has been raised by the petitioner prima facie appears to have force of law, but the same can be challenged along with other grounds after the Commissioner decides the appeal, if he feels aggrieved. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order at this stage. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. However, it is open for the Petitioner to challenge the jurisdiction of the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax (Additiona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Addl. CST against such an order. 9. As regards the first contention, the CST while rejecting the plea of the present Petitioner referred to an earlier approval of the Government granted on 30th April, 2009. It was further observed that at the time when the suo motu revisional order was passed, the notification of delegation had not yet been published and, therefore, the Addl. CST who passed a suo motu revisional power was still acting as a JCST. 10. This Court would like to first consider the correctness of the above conclusion of the CST vis-à-vis the issue of prior approval of the Government. Section 5 of the OVAT Act reads as under: "5. Delegation of the Commissioner's powers and functions.- Subject to such restrictions a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owers of the CST to the JCST. Consequently, that earlier approval of the 30th April, 2009 was not sufficient to justify the further delegation of powers to the Addl. CST more than 9 years later on 5th June, 2018. Clearly, therefore, the notification dated 5th June, 2018 was contrary to Section 5 of the OVAT Act read with Rule 5(2) of the OVAT Rules. 13. This Court is, therefore, unable to agree with the conclusion reached by the CST in the impugned order in the above regard. Further, there is no answer to the contention raised by the Petitioner-Assessee that the said notification dated 5th June, 2018 was in fact never gazetted. In reply to an application filed by the Petitioner under the RTI Act on this specific aspect, the reply received ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
