Statutory scrutiny before tax demand and limited equitable interest on withheld entry tax under interim protection

Form E-24 notices for alleged short payment of Odisha entry tax were held unsustainable where the statutory scrutiny process under Section 7 and Rule 10 had not been followed, because the demand mechanism could be used only after scrutiny of returns and detection of a payable shortfall. The revisional order affirming those notices was also set aside. On interest, Section 7(5) was not applied as statutory default interest for the pre-28.03.2017 period because the unpaid balance was retained under interim judicial protection and the liability was under active challenge. The Court nevertheless indicated that the State could be compensated by simple interest on the withheld amount for the period of deprivation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether notices in Form E-24 issued on the footing of less payment of tax, and the revisional order affirming them, were sustainable when the statutory scrutiny procedure had not been followed; (ii) Whether interest under Section 7(5) of the Odisha Entry Tax Act, 1999 could be levied on the balance tax withheld during 2010 to 2017, in the facts of the interim orders of the Supreme Court and the earlier writ orders of the High Court.

Issue (i): Whether notices in Form E-24 issued on the footing of less payment of tax, and the revisional order affirming them, were sustainable when the statutory scrutiny procedure had not been followed.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 7 and Rule 10 contemplated self-assessment, monthly returns, scrutiny of every return, detection of mistakes, and then issuance of notice in the prescribed form. Form E-24 could be used only when, on scrutiny, the dealer was found to have paid less than what was payable as per the return. The impugned notices were issued without adherence to that procedure and were not in conformity with the requirement explained in the earlier binding decision on Form E-24 and Form E-8 notices. In the facts of these cases, the balances had been deposited pursuant to interim protection and could not be treated as an admitted mistake in return so as to justify the impugned demand mechanism.

Conclusion: The notices in Form E-24 were unsustainable and were quashed, and the revisional order affirming them was set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether interest under Section 7(5) of the Odisha Entry Tax Act, 1999 could be levied on the balance tax withheld during 2010 to 2017, in the facts of the interim orders of the Supreme Court and the earlier writ orders of the High Court.

Analysis: Section 7(5) fastened interest only where the dealer failed, without sufficient cause, to pay the amount of tax due as per the return. The Court held that the petitioners had a genuine and sufficient cause for not paying the full amount during the relevant period because the legality of the levy itself and the scope of liability were under active constitutional scrutiny, and the Supreme Court had directed partial deposits to be treated as deposits and not tax. At the same time, the State had been deprived of use of the balance amount during the interregnum. Balancing these considerations, the Court declined to sustain statutory interest for the entire pre-2017 period, but held that equity required compensation on the withheld amount for the period during which the interim orders operated.

Conclusion: Statutory interest under Section 7(5) was not sustained for the pre-28.03.2017 period on the footing of default without sufficient cause, but the petitioners were directed to pay the balance tax with simple interest at 9% per annum for the relevant withholding period, in favour of the assessee only to the limited extent of rejecting the statutory interest demand.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded only in part: the demand machinery based on Form E-24 and the revisional order were set aside, penalty was not enforced, and the petitioners were directed to discharge the unpaid balance entry tax with equitable interest, while retaining appellate remedies on assessment-related issues.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a dealer's non-payment of the full tax disclosed in returns is protected by operative interim orders and the statutory scrutiny procedure is not followed, the demand notice mechanism cannot be invoked mechanically under the return-scrutiny provisions; however, the State may still be compensated by equitable interest on the withheld amount for the period of deprivation.

---