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 identifies assessment process flaws, advises appeal to appellate authority with stay on tax realization.</h1> <h3>Geetanjali Cement Products Versus Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela II Circle, Rourkela</h3> The High Court found discrepancies in the assessment process and noted laches on the part of the assessing officer, potentially resulting in revenue loss. ... Order of assessment challenged - Whether order having been passed beyond the period of limitation is illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law ? Held that:- There is lack of regularity in maintaining the order-sheets, as the same have not been maintained in the prescribed form of the Government. The order-sheets maintained in plain papers can be easily replaced. In this case, if we look at the averments made in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the affidavit filed by Sri Murmu as well as the records of the Revenue and accept the statement of Sri Murmu, then we have to believe that the order-sheets might have been replaced. Taking into account the entire factual matrix of the case, as there are disputed questions of fact, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner should approach the first appellate authority. Issues:Challenge to assessment order passed beyond the period of limitation.Analysis:The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing RCC hume pipes, challenged the assessment order dated January 5, 2007, passed by the Sales Tax Officer under section 12(4) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 for the period 2003-04. The petitioner contended that the order was beyond the period of limitation, making it illegal and unsustainable. The tax payable was quantified at Rs. 81,139, with additions made to the taxable turnover due to transportation charges and alleged contravention of form ID 92.Observations and Directions:The High Court noted discrepancies in the assessment process, including irregular maintenance of order-sheets and doubts regarding the timeline of the assessment order. The court observed laches on the part of the assessing officer, potentially leading to loss of revenue. The Sales Tax Officer was directed to appear before the court, and subsequent affidavits and responses were filed by the concerned officers.Verification and Inconsistencies:Discrepancies emerged regarding the date of assessment order, its dispatch, and service to the petitioner. The court scrutinized the timeline of events and the explanations provided by the Sales Tax Officer. Issues were raised about the authenticity of notices, receipt acknowledgments, and the delay in serving the assessment order.Conclusion and Directions:The court found irregularities in maintaining order-sheets and raised concerns about possible replacements. Given the disputed facts and lack of clarity, the petitioner was advised to approach the first appellate authority. The court directed the State Government and tax authorities to issue notifications for maintaining records, issuing orders by registered post, and ensuring proper documentation.Final Disposition:The writ petition was disposed of, allowing the petitioner to appeal before the first appellate authority with a stay on tax realization. Recommendations were made for improving administrative practices, including the use of government order-sheet forms and thorough investigation by senior tax officials. The judgment was concluded by returning records to respective parties and supplying a copy to the counsel for the Revenue.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
