TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 103
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asons for initiation of proceedings under Section 12 (8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (OAT Act) for the year 1998-99. The Petitioner also seeks the quashing of the reassessment proceedings for the period 1998-99. 2. The background facts are that the Petitioner had set up a Small Scale Industry Unit in terms of the Industrial Policy Resolution 1992 (IPR-92). It is duly registered as such by the District Industries Centre (DIC), Balasore. The Petitioner was permitted to manufacture aluminum utensils. The DIC also certified the date of commencement of commercial production was 2nd June, 1995. 3. The DIC also issued a certificate dated 28th October, 1995 permitting the Petitioner to avail sales tax concession on purchase of ra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 97-98 and 98-99. It is pointed out that although the STO accepted the claim of exemption and was supposed to have assessed the Petitioner to Nil without raising any demand but no assessment order in Form IX as required under Rule 31 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules (OST Rules) was in fact passed. Even the Petitioner as assessee was not provided, in terms of Rule 82-A of the OST Rules, with a copy of the assessment order. 6. It is stated that the STO initiated 'reassessment proceedings' by issuing a notice to the Petitioner. The Petitioner wrote to the STO on 18th September, 2001 seeking to be provided with the reasons for reassessment. This was in response to the statutory notice dated 6th February, 2001 issued to the Petitioner by the ST....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....STO for initiating reassessment proceedings. It was not based on any objective satisfaction of the STO which was essential for reopening of an assessment under Section 12 (8) of the OST Act. Lastly, it is submitted that the certificate issued by the DIC granting exemption in sales tax could not be ignored by the STO as explained by the Supreme Court of India in Vadilal Chemicals Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [2005] 5 RC 295, which has been reiterated by this Court in its decision dated 20th April, 2021 in STREV No.28 of 2006 (M/s. Bajrangballi Wire Products Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Orissa). 11. Mr. Padhy, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Department was unable to deny that in terms of the first exemption certificate, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....explained by the Supreme Court in Vadilal Chemicals Ltd. (supra) and this Court in M/s. Bajrangballi Wire Products Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Department is bound to take into account the DIC certificate, which specifically allowed sales tax exemption for the years in question. The decision in Vadilal Chemicals Ltd. (supra) is instructive in this regard. In similar circumstances in that case, the Supreme Court disapproved the approach of the sales tax authorities seeking to override the exemption granted by the Department of Industries and Commerce. It was held that the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (DCCT) "certainly could not assume that the exemption was wrongly granted nor did he have the jurisdiction under Section 20 of the State A....