TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 1062
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal), Cuttack in SA Nos.47 and 49 of 2011-12 as well as the consequent assessment order dated 23rd November, 2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, CT & GST, Balasore Circle, Balasore for the period 2003-04. 3. While admitting the present revision petition on 16th April 2021, this Court framed the following question of law for consideration: "Was the commodity sold by the Petitioner for the period in question, HDPE Bags or HDPE Woven Sacks and correspondingly is the said product exigible to tax @ 4% or 8% respectively?" 4. The background facts are that the Petitioner is engaged in manufacturing High Density Polyethylene (HDPE)/Poly Propylene (PP) woven fabrics, bags, sacks and tapes and sells them both inside an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ruary 2005, and 30th November 2005 in which it was alleged that the Petitioner had suppressed purchases and sales. The STO determined the alleged sale suppression at Rs. 7,30,825/-. The STO rejected the books of accounts produced by the Petitioner and enhanced the turnover by a sum of Rs. 87,69,900/- which was 12 times the alleged suppression. The STO determined the GTO of the Petitioner for the year 2003-04 at Rs. 2,40,74,981/- and TTO at Rs. 2,36,95,365/- and levied tax @ 8% as per Entry 136 of List-C amounting to Rs. 18,80,454.48 and disallowed the set off of Rs. 2,69,022/- paid on the purchase of raw materials. Accordingly, the STO raised a demand of 9. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 31st January 2006 of the STO, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioner afresh within a period of three months. The categorical finding of the Tribunal was that the Petitioner had sold the HDPE woven sacks to the purchasers inside the State of Odisha. 12. Consequent of the above order of the Full Bench of the Tribunal, the DCST passed a fresh assessment order on 23rd November 2020 and raised a tax demand of Rs. 16,13,968/-. 13. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Sidhartha Ray, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Opposite Party- Sales Tax Department. 14. Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the Tribunal misdirected itself in holding that the product sold by the Petitioner was HDPE woven sacks and that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... delivered a judgment on 25th September 2015 observing that HDPE/PP woven sacks was different from HDPE bags. This Court categorically held that "bags can neither be fabrics nor be sacks". In fact, it was observed by this Court that " 'sack' means a large bag of strong coarsely woven material" whereas the expression 'bag' would mean "any container or receptacle of leather, cloth, paper, etc capable of being closed at the mouth". The above decision of this Court was followed by the Tribunal in the impugned order. He accordingly submitted that no error had been committed by the Tribunal in remanding the matter to the assessing authority for a fresh decision in accordance with law. 16. The above submissions have been conside....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ordhandas v H. H. Dave, Assistant Collector AIR 1970 SC 755, the Supreme Court explained: "It is well established that in a taxing statute there is no room for any intendment but regard must be had to the clear meaning of the words." Recently, while interpreting the scope of applicability of an exemption notification under the Customs Act, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. M/s. Dilip Kumar & Company (2018) 9 SCC 1 held: "There cannot be any implied concept either in identifying the subject of the tax or person liable to pay tax. That is why it is often said that subject is not to be taxed, unless the words of the statute unambiguously impose a tax on him, that one has to look merely at....