AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 895
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dvocate, State of Orissa, Mr. Baldeep Karan Singh, Mr. Kabir Hathi, Mr. M.L. Garg, Advocate for Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Mr. J.S. Rawat, Advocate for State of Uttarakhand, Ms. Rama Ahluwalia, Advocate for State of Maharashtra, Ms. Madhumita Bhatthcharjee, Advocate for State of West Bengal, Mr. K.V. Vijayakumar for State of Tamil Nadu., Mr. C.K. Sasi for the State of Kerala,, Mr. Krishnanad Pandey And Mr. Amrendra Kumar Chobey ORDER The instant appeals being Appeal Nos. CST/12/2018, CST/13/2018, CST/14/2018 and CST/15/2018 have been admitted. The present stay applications are filed in the instant appeals for stay of order dated 29.06.2018 passed by the Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal, Cuttack ("the Tribunal" for short). The parties involved....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by different branches of the appellant in respective States. It would be appropriate to explain table pertaining to Appeal No. CST/12/2018. Rest of the tables pertaining to other appeals can then be easily understood. As per the table in Appeal No. CST/12/2018 for the Assessment Year 1980- 90 the demand in dispute is Rs. 31,79,32,630/- on the basis that no 'C' Forms were produced and CST is payable @ 8%. It is pointed out that if 'C' Forms are produced then the rate of CST tax will be reduced to 4%. On that basis the impugned demand will be reduced to Rs. 15,89,66,315/-. It is, further, pointed out that the appellant has paid amounts towards impugned demands pursuant to various Court orders in the earlier rounds of the present proceeding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts paid towards the impugned demands pursuant to various orders passed by different Hon'ble Courts / Tribunals/ Authorities in the earlier rounds of the present proceedings. Local Sales Tax paid by different branches of the appellant in respective States on all sales made by them as per the Assessment Orders for 1991-92. 31,80,99,447 15,90,49,723.50 12,06,25,238 1,14,06,16,532 In Appeal No. CST / 14/ 2018 (Assessment Year 1992-93) (I) (II) (III) (VI) Total impugned demand of CST on the assumption that all sales liable to CST and on the basis that no CForms produced and thus CST payable at 8% If C-Forms are produced. Rate of CST will be reduced to 4%. On that basis, the impugned demand will be reduced as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmitted by the appellant. Counsel submitted that she has also no instructions as to how much local taxes have been paid by the appellant. Counsel submitted that the balance tax due from the appellant is Rs. 573,984,939.00. Following table is submitted by the Counsel: Details about the demand and payment (Amount in Rupees) S.No. Period Demand raised by STO Reduced amount in 1^st Appeal Demand confirmed by OSTT Paid as per VATs Balance Tax due 1. 1989-90 317,932,630.00 317,932,630.00 317,932,630.00 130,000,000,00 187,932,630.00 2. 1991-92 527,092,433.00 318,099,447.00 318,099,447.00 120,625,238.00 197,474,209.00 3. 1992-93 889,373,716.00 251,139,752.00 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... instructions on the tables submitted by the appellant. It has failed to do so. In such circumstances, I accept the statement made by Counsel for the appellant in this behalf which is supported by the tables submitted by him. In the ultimate analysis I find that substantial amount has been deposited by the appellant. This is borne out by the tables submitted by the appellant. Even as per the table submitted by the State of Orissa, the appellant has deposited substantial amount. Payment made towards local sale taxes is also substantial. It bears repetition to state that if that payment is taken into consideration, the appellant has deposited more than the amounts covered by the impugned demands. I am informed by the Counsel for the appell....