TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 433
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, 1947 ('OST Rules') holding that the taxable turnover of the Petitioner for the period 1996-97 was Rs. 5,77,123/- on which the tax and surcharge payable worked out to Rs. 1,01,574/-. The Petitioner also challenges the subsequent appellate order dated 15^th December, 2005 passed by the Commissioner of Sales Taxes (CST), Orissa, Cuttack upholding the aforementioned order dated 6th November, 2004. 3. The background facts are that the Petitioner is a small scale industrial unit set up under the provisions of the Industrial Policy Resolution (IPR), 1989 read with Notification dated 16th August, 1990 of the Finance Department, Government of Odisha. The Petitioner firm is engaged in the manufacturing of steel furniture, almirahs, chair, table....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....naging partner Sri S. Ramesh Gupta appeared and produced the books of accounts which are duly examined. On being asked about the objection raised by the A.G. (Audit) about the exemption limit of the Unit the managing partner stated that our unit comes under I.P.R.-1989 and the entire raw materials and finished products are fully exempted from payment of tax under the O.S.T. Act. Further he stated that due to variation in size of Almirah and other products as per the requirement of the customers is differing from time to time but they are within the prescribed amount of raw materials." 6. The STO further stated in the order dated 17th July 2002 that he verified the books of accounts and confirmed that the limit set for raw materials for e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....payment of tax." 8. Notwithstanding the above clarification, the ACST issued the impugned SCN dated 20th November, 2003 to the Petitioner under Rule 80 of the OST Rules claiming that the STO had not examined the issue in detail and that the assessment order was found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Government revenue. Accordingly, the Petitioner was asked to produce the books of accounts before the ACST on 4th December, 2003. 9. Thereafter on 3rd November, 2004, the ACST passed an order revising the assessment order under Rule 80 of the OST Rules and determined the tax payable as Rs. 1,01,574/-. Although the ACST took note of the letter dated 2nd September, 2002 issued by the DIC clarifying the position, the ACST h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osition regarding different sizes of the finished products, the insistence by the sales tax authorities that the Petitioner should strictly adhere to the quantities mentioned in the DIC certificate was unfair and unrealistic. 14. Mr. Padhi, learned counsel for the Department, submitted that they had gone strictly by the DIC certificate which specified the exact quantities of raw material and finished products for the purpose of the availability of sales tax exemption. He further submitted that the clarification letter issued by the DIC on 4th September, 2002 was vague and did not help the case of the Petitioner. 15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that the impugned orders of the ACST and the Appe....