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 overturns Tribunal order, directs fresh consideration due to audit assessment validity and freight charges.</h1> <h3>JAY KISHAN DASMALL JUTE PRODUCTS (P) LTD. Versus ASSESSING AUTHORITY-CUM-SALES TAX OFFICER BALASORE</h3> JAY KISHAN DASMALL JUTE PRODUCTS (P) LTD. Versus ASSESSING AUTHORITY-CUM-SALES TAX OFFICER BALASORE - [2023] 111 G S.T.R. 57 (Ori) Issues: 1. Validity of imposition of freight charges on overall turnover without examining individual vouchers.2. Justification of penalty imposition in absence of mala fide intent.3. Validity of audit assessment under section 9C of the Orissa Entry Tax Act due to delay in submission of audit visit report.Analysis:Issue 1: Validity of Freight Charges Imposition The revision petition challenges the imposition of freight charges at one percent of the purchased value on overall turnover without examining individual vouchers. The court framed the question of whether this imposition is sustainable in the eyes of the law. The petitioner contends that the purchased materials at market rate already include freight charges. The court directed the Tribunal to re-examine this issue after scrutinizing the vouchers provided by the petitioner.Issue 2: Justification of Penalty Imposition The second question raised pertains to the justification of penalty imposition in the absence of any mala fide intent to evade taxes. The petitioner argues against the penalty imposition without any intentional evasion. However, the court did not provide a direct resolution to this issue in the judgment.Issue 3: Validity of Audit Assessment The petitioner also raises the issue of the validity of audit assessment under section 9C of the Orissa Entry Tax Act due to a delay in submitting the audit visit report (AVR). The counsel refers to a previous court order that favored the assessee on a similar jurisdictional issue. The court acknowledged that this is a jurisdictional matter and directed the Tribunal to consider the validity of the audit assessment in light of the previous court decision.In conclusion, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and restored the case for fresh consideration. The Tribunal was directed to re-examine the validity of the audit assessment due to the delay in submitting the AVR, along with the issue of freight charges, based on the individual vouchers. The court clarified that it did not express any view on the matter and requested the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal within six months of the listed date. The revision petition was disposed of accordingly, with an urgent certified copy of the order to be issued.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
