TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1961 (5) TMI 55
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ocably, under due process of law, though under an erroneous view on the applicability of the proviso to section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Act, can the same sales tax be recovered over again from the selling dealer and will not such recovery amount to an abuse of the process of law? (3) In the facts and circumstances of the case was not the Tribunal justified in taking the declaration Ex. A into consideration under clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of rule 61 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947, as amended after the Amendment Act XX of 1957?" 2.. The relevent facts are as follows: The opposite party is a dealer in betel leaves; he was assessed on a gross turnover of Rs. 20,704 and a taxable turnover of Rs. 5,400 under section 12(5) of the Orissa Sal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proved to be a genuine one before being admitted; the Tribunal overruled the said objection and admitted the document as evidence and allowed the deduction under section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii). Therefore, the State Government made an application for reference of certain questions to this Court under section 24(1) of the Act for decision. The Sales Tax Tribunal made an order of reference on the said application whereby it referred the said questions of law, hereinbefore quoted, for opinion of this Court. 3.. In the present context, the settled legal position as laid down by this Court-so far as relevant for the purpose of answering the said questions-is this: Where on the strength of a certificate of registration of a registered dealer in which c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is also the settled position in law that the liability of a registered dealer to sales tax will arise if the facts necessary to establish exemption under section 5(2) (a)(ii) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, are not found irrespective of whether a declaration was obtained under rule 27(2) of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947; the production of a declaration under rule 27(2) is not always obligatory on the part of the selling dealer when claiming the exemption; it is open to him to claim exemption by adducing other evidence so as to bring the transaction within the scope of section 5(2) (a)(ii) of the Act: (Member, Sales Tax Tribunal, Orissa v. S. Lal & Co.[1961] 12 S.T.C. 25.; Netrananda v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa[1961] 12 S.T.C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or sale in Orissa or for use as specified in the section, the proviso lays down that, in case the goods are used for other purposes, then the dealer, will not get the benefit of the deduction allowed in section 5(2)(a)(ii), and instead the price of goods so utilised shall be included in the dealer's taxable turnover. This interpretation of the section and the proviso is supported by the decisions cited above. Our answer to this question, accordingly, is in the negative, namely, that section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) of the Act on the one hand and its proviso on the other are not mutually exclusive in their applicability to a particular sale. 6.. Re: question No. 2-In the light of the settled legal position as stated above, our answer to first part ....