TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court rules for petitioner in Sales Tax case, invalidating assessment for double taxation</h1> <h3>Kedarsons Versus Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack-I, Central Circle, Cuttack and others</h3> Kedarsons Versus Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack-I, Central Circle, Cuttack and others - [2006] 146 STC 49 (Ori) Issues:1. Jurisdiction of Sales Tax Officer for assessment.2. Validity of assessment under section 12(5) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947.3. Double assessment and remedy under the Act.Analysis:Issue 1: Jurisdiction of Sales Tax Officer for assessmentThe petitioner, a partnership firm, underwent changes in business name and location over the years. The Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack-I Central Circle, issued an assessment under section 12(5) of the Act, claiming jurisdiction due to the business operations at Dolamundai. The petitioner contended that as its books of accounts were kept at Nayasarak, the place of business was considered to be Nayasarak, falling under the jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle. The Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax upheld the Central Circle's jurisdiction, emphasizing the need for the petitioner to file returns under the Rules at Dolamundai. The High Court analyzed the jurisdictional issue extensively, considering the business location and bookkeeping practices to determine the appropriate Sales Tax Officer for assessment.Issue 2: Validity of assessment under section 12(5) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947The petitioner challenged the assessment made under section 12(5) by the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack-I Central Circle, as double taxation. The petitioner argued that since it had already been assessed by the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle for the same turnover, subjecting it to a second assessment was impermissible. Citing the precedent in State of Orissa v. Sundarlal Mandholiwal, the petitioner contended that the Act prohibits double assessment. The High Court concurred, emphasizing that the turnover assessed under section 12(4) by the West Circle Sales Tax Officer should not be taxed again by the Central Circle Sales Tax Officer. The Court directed a fresh assessment to avoid double taxation and ensure compliance with the Act.Issue 3: Double assessment and remedy under the ActThe High Court reiterated the principle against double assessment under the Act and Rules, emphasizing the need to prevent taxing the same turnover twice. Given the finality of the assessment by the West Circle Sales Tax Officer, the Court quashed the impugned assessment by the Central Circle Sales Tax Officer. The Court directed the Central Circle Sales Tax Officer to conduct a fresh assessment, considering the previous assessment records and avoiding duplication of taxation. The Court provided specific instructions for the fresh assessment process, emphasizing compliance with the law and the Act to prevent double taxation.In conclusion, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the previous assessment orders and directing a fresh assessment to ensure compliance with the law and prevent double taxation. The judgment highlighted the importance of jurisdictional clarity, adherence to legal principles, and avoiding duplication of assessments under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947.
TaxTMI 