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 upholds Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal decision on tax suppression dispute by brick manufacturer.</h1> <h3>M/s. Gayatri Brick Industries Versus State of Odisha</h3> M/s. Gayatri Brick Industries Versus State of Odisha - [2015] 86 VST 421 (Ori) Issues:1. Challenge to finding of the Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal regarding alleged suppression of tax and enhancement of tax demand.2. Allegations of under-invoicing and sale suppression by the petitioner.3. Violation of natural justice in the proceedings.4. Interpretation of Section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act for revision by the High Court.Analysis:1. The petitioner challenged the Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal's finding of alleged suppression of tax and enhancement of tax demand. The petitioner, a registered dealer engaged in manufacturing and selling bricks, maintained accounts for the year 2001-2002. The assessing authority found discrepancies in the reported sale prices of bricks, leading to a demand for additional tax amounting to &8377; 3,33,950. The First Appellate Authority reduced the tax liability to &8377; 84,834, which was further increased by the Tribunal to &8377; 2,45,310. The petitioner contended that the order violated natural justice as no notice of cross-objection was provided before the tax enhancement.2. The petitioner was accused of under-invoicing the sale price of bricks for 259 truckloads and suppressing sales for 340 truckloads. The Tribunal found discrepancies between reported and actual sale prices, resulting in the tax increase. The petitioner argued that other manufacturers might have used their name for transportation, but this defense was rejected. The Tribunal's decision to enhance the tax liability was based on the perceived under-invoicing and sale suppression by the petitioner.3. The petitioner raised concerns about the violation of natural justice due to lack of notice regarding the tax enhancement. Citing a previous judgment, the petitioner argued that the Tribunal's failure to provide an opportunity for a hearing before increasing the tax demand rendered the order illegal. However, the Court differentiated the present case from the cited judgment, noting that a cross-appeal by the State provided notice of the tax enhancement, eliminating the alleged violation of natural justice.4. Section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act allows for revision by the High Court on questions of law. The Court emphasized that only legal issues could be considered in the revision, not factual disputes. The petitioner's claims of other manufacturers using their name and absence of sale suppression were factual issues rejected by the lower authorities and the Tribunal. As these were not questions of law, the Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal's findings and dismissed the revision.
TaxTMI 