TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the decisions in the two earlier cases under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 were in conflict so as to require one of them to be treated as overruled or preferred.
Analysis: The dispute arose from different provisions governing taxable turnover. One line of authority dealt with sales of tax-free goods under Section 5(2)(A)(a)(i), where deduction depended on the selling dealer proving sale of goods covered by notification under Section 6 and compliance with the prescribed conditions. The other line of authority concerned sales under Section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii), where the dealer who purchased goods on declaration and resold them to a registered dealer was required to ensure that the resale was in a manner attracting tax under the Act. The Court held that the two decisions turned on different statutory texts, different factual settings, and different consequences, and that the earlier decision had already distinguished the other case. The Court also noted that judgments are not to be construed as statutes and that isolated observations in one decision cannot be treated as controlling beyond the actual issue decided.
Conclusion: There was no conflict of opinion between the two decisions, and the reference was answered accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
