TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 205
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o.1) ('Dy. CST') for the periods from 2000- 2001, 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 under the Odisha Sales Tax Act, 1947 (OST Act). 2. This is the second round of litigation at the instance of the Petitioner. Earlier, challenging the re-computation orders dated 23rd February, 2017 passed by the Dy. CST, Balasore, the present Petitioner had filed W.P. (C) Nos.3707, 3709, 3710 and 3712 of 2017. By a common order dated 31st July, 2019 this Court set aside the impugned orders on the sole ground of violation of the principle of natural justice. The Court directed that notice be issued to the Petitioner and after affording it an opportunity of being heard, a fresh reasoned order should be passed by the Dy. CST, Balasore. Purusnt thereto, fresh ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al was remanded to the ACST, Balasore to pass an appropriate order. On 27th February, 2009 a fresh assessment order was passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Balasore Circle (STO) determining that the Petitioner was entitled to a refund of Rs. 22,24,750.17. On 4th April, 2009 the Petitioner applied for grant of the above refund. The said amount was credited to the account of the Petitioner on 27th January, 2010. 7. The above decision dated 27th November, 2007 of the Full Bench of the Tribunal in the Petitioner's case was based on the decision dated 5th January, 2007 of this Court in M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. State of Odisha 2007 (1) OLR 415 (Ori). The question addressed by this Court in the said decision was "whether surcharge under Sec.5-A of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....16 SC 5014. The Supreme Court reversed the order of this Court and held that the surcharge "under Section 5-A of the OST Act is to be levied before deducting the amount of entry tax paid by the dealer." It must also be mentioned here that as a result of the above judgment of the Supreme Court, the Department began issuing orders of re-computation of the tax, surcharge and interest payable to all the assessees, including those in whose cases it had not challenged the order of the Tribunal. 10. In the case of M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. the re-computation order was challenged before this Court in W.P. (C) No.3804 of 2018. Since the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Bajaj Auto case was inter partes, this Court held, by the judgment dated 31st Mar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmissioner or Assistant Commissioner. 13. Under Rule 26-A of the OST Rules, a registered dealer is expected to preserve books of account and other documents including bills, credit and cash memoranda, invoices and vouchers, etc. relating to the business of any year for a period of three years thereafter or for a period of 12 months after finalization of the order of assessment or penalty in appeal, revision or reference for the year to which it relates, whichever is later. As far as the present case is concerned, even if the aforementioned periods of limitation have been crossed. 14. Viewed from any angle therefore, there is no legal basis for the Department in the present case to have sought to re-compute the tax, surcharge and interest ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mean that the suo motu power can be exercised at any time. It is trite that, if no period of limitation has been prescribed, statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable period. What, however, shall be the reasonable period would depend upon the nature of the statute, rights and liabilities thereunder and other relevant factors. Revisional jurisdiction, in our opinion, should ordinarily be exercised within a period of three years having regard to the purport in terms of the said Act. In any event, the same should not exceed the period of five years. The view of the High Court, thus, cannot be said to be unreasonable. Reasonable period, keeping in view the discussions made hereinbefore, must be found out from the st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of limitation. 21. This Court is unable to agree with this submission either. The Full Bench of the Tribunal allowed the Petitioner's second appeal applying the law in terms of the judgment of this Court in Bajaj Auto. As explained by the Supreme Court in the case of Dy. CIT v. Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Ltd. (2013) 11 SCC 373: "The subsequent reversal of the legal position by the judgment of the Supreme Court does not authorize the Department to reopen the assessment, which stood closed on the basis of the law, as it stood at the relevant time." 22. The legal position has been succinctly explained by the Tripura High Court in Tripura Ispat (A Unit of Lohia Group) v. Union of India (2021) 87 GSTR 463 (Tripura) as under: "As is w....