9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on by the Petitioner-dealer arising from an order dated 8th August, 2018 passed by the Odisha Sales Tax Tribunal, Cuttack (Tribunal) dismissing the Petitioner's S.A. No.1035 of 2003-04. By the impugned order, the Tribunal affirmed the order dated 29th April, 2003 of the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Sambalpur Range, Sambalpur dismissing the Assessee's appeal against an assessment order passed by the Sales Tax Officer (STO), Sambalpur-II Circle, Bargarh under Section 12 (4) of the Odisha Sales Tax Act, 1947 (OST Act) for the Assessment Year 2001-02 raising a tax demand and surcharge on the basis of purchase suppression. 4. Admit. The following question of law is framed for consideration: "a. Whether denial of opportunity to cross-ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the JCST and the Tribunal. 8. This Court has heard the submission of Mr. Jagabandhu Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Department. 9. The Court finds that in the present case the Department has relied on material purportedly gathered from the computer records at the border check gates at Chichola and Bhagatdehuri, which clearly indicated the name of the selling dealer. The purchaser was shown as the present Petitioner. The Tribunal specifically notes the plea taken by the Petitioner-dealer that 'another establishment in the name and style M/s. Jai Maa Kali Store is existing in Baragarh Town and the alleged transaction might have been caused by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay of the time' or that would to prolong the proceedings, appears not to be justified since the STO could have made the entire exercise of summoning those selling dealers and allowing an opportunity to the Petitioner to cross-examine them, time bound. This could have been done even at the stage of First Appeal. Unfortunately, the matter kept pending in the Tribunal for as long as fifteen years. Today in respect of transaction took place way back in February and March, 2002, the Petitioner would have to face the prospect of having the STO summon the said selling dealers for the purposes of their cross-examining. This is not practical or realistically feasible considering the long lapse of time. At the same time there has clearly been denial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
