2007 (4) TMI 633

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nal Standing Counsel for the Revenue.   The petitioner, who is a registered dealer under the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 and has been granted a TIN number, challenges the order of assessment dated January 31, 2007 passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Bhubaneswar-II Circle, Ward-E-Opposite Party No. 2 under the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 vide annexure 2 on the following grounds: (....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sent petitioner who is a dealer assigned with TIN as per the provisions of rule 34(12)(b) of the OVAT Rules. Therefore, the order dated January 31, 2007 passed by the opposite party No. 1 is without jurisdiction and is further contrary to the express provisions of the OVAT Act and OVAT Rules and the same is accordingly liable to be quashed. It would most relevant to take note of rule 34(12)(b) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....admitted by the learned counsel for the Revenue that the Sales Tax Officer is not "the assessing authority of the range" as required under rule 34(12)(b). We are satisfied on a scrutiny of the impugned order of assessment under annexure 2, that since it has been passed by the Sales Tax Officer and not by the assessing authority of the range, the order of assessment cannot withstand judicial scruti....