Sales tax liability under the Orissa Act required fresh determination after the Supreme Court ruled against double taxation in the same sales series.

Demand notices under the Orissa Sales Tax Act could not be finally enforced where liability depended on Explanation II to section 2(c) as amended and validated in 1979, because the Supreme Court had already indicated that sales in the same series cannot be taxed at two points so as to fasten tax twice on successive dealers. In light of that ruling, the petitioners' liability required fresh determination by the competent Divisional Forest Officers. The impugned demand notices were therefore kept in abeyance pending re-examination.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned demand notices under the Orissa Sales Tax Act were to be sustained or whether the liability of the petitioners required fresh determination in the light of the Supreme Court's ruling.

Analysis: The writ applications challenged the validity, legality, and applicability of explanation II to section 2(c) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act as amended and validated by the Orissa Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1979. The Court noted that an identical controversy had already been considered by the Supreme Court, which had indicated that sales in the same series cannot be taxed at two points so as to fasten sales tax liability twice on successive dealers. Following that ruling, the Court found that the existing demands could not be finally enforced without reconsideration of the petitioners' liability in accordance with the Supreme Court's observations.

Conclusion: The petitioners' liability was directed to be re-examined afresh by the competent Divisional Forest Officers, and the impugned demand notices were kept in abeyance until such re-examination.

---