TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 is not practical or realistically feasible considering the long lapse of time. At the same time there has clearly been denial of an effective opportunity to the Petitioner-dealer by refusing it the right to cross-examine the selling dealers. While in similar cases it might have been possible for the Court to remand the matter to the STO to complete the above exercise, in the present case, considering that more than two decades have elapsed since those transactions, an opportunity being provided at this sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pur-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-examine the third party whose papers constitutes the basis of assessment? 5. The background facts are that the Petitioner-dealer is a wholesaler of grocery articles. The IST, Mobile Unit, Sambalpur submitted a fraud case report dated 29th November, 2002 on the allegation that the dealer had been involved in clandestine purchase of edible oil from two parties, one in Raipur (Chattisgarh) and the other from Andhra Pradesh. The thr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y 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 that establishment . 10. Once the dealer has taken a stand that the person shown to be the purchaser is not the Petitioner but someone by the same name, the burden shifted to the Department to demonstrate that in fact it was the Petitioner who had made those purchases. In similar circumstances, in M/s. K.J. Ispat Ltd. v. Unknown (2012) 55 VST 228 (Ori.) this Court observed as under: 36. Since the slip was recov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct 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 of an effective opportunity to the Petitioner-dealer by refusing it the right to cross-examine the selling dealers. 13. While in similar cases it might have been possible for the Court to remand the matter to the STO to complete the above exercise, in the present case, considering that more than two decades have elapsed since those transactions, an opportunity being provided at this stage to the Petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
