https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157817 The levy of surcharge under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 was upheld because earlier binding authority had already validated it, and the challenge to surcharge failed. However, section 13(4)(a) could not be used to enforce a disputed surcharge liability, since that summary recovery provision applies only to admitted tax due and does not authorise determination of contested liability. A demand issued under rule 32 on that basis was therefore defective and without jurisdiction. The demand and order founded on section 13(4)(a) were set aside, while the surcharge levy itself remained valid. en-us Thu, 13 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Oct 2013 18:40:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157817 The levy of surcharge under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 was upheld because earlier binding authority had already validated it, and the challenge to surcharge failed. However, section 13(4)(a) could not be used to enforce a disputed surcharge liability, since that summary recovery provision applies only to admitted tax due and does not authorise determination of contested liability. A demand issued under rule 32 on that basis was therefore defective and without jurisdiction. The demand and order founded on section 13(4)(a) were set aside, while the surcharge levy itself remained valid. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 13 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157817