2022 (1) TMI 104

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sposed of by this common judgment. 2. All the revision petitions arise out of a common order dated 4th April, 2006 passed by the Full Bench of Orissa Sales Tax STREV No.66 of 2006 and Batch Page 2 of 7 Tribunal, Cuttack in S.A. No.1314 to 1319 of 2001-2002. By the said order the Tribunal confirmed the common order of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (ACCT), Sundargarh Range, Rourkela in the First Appeals filed by the Petitioner assessee against the order of penalty imposed under Section 9-B(3) of the Orissa Sales Tax (OST) Act by the Sales Tax Officer (STO), Rourkela-II, Circle- Panposh for the years 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96. By the said order the ACCT set aside the order of penalty and remand....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(4) of the OST Act was completed on 27th January, 1992. On 9th January, 1997 the STO, Rourkela Circle issued a show-cause notice to the Petitioner under Section 9-B(3) of the OST Act for the periods 1990-91 till 1995-96 on the allegation that despite the tax holiday the Petitioner had collected sales tax on transactions and failed to deposit it with the Government. The above notice was based on fraud case report submitted by the STO, Rourkela Intelligence Bureau. 7. The Petitioner states that on 29th November, 1997 it produced the books of account along with the relevant documents including the profit and loss account and balance-sheet before the STO. The Petitioner asked the STO to give in writing the allegations so that the Petitioner ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty and direct the STO to verify the Books of Account and direct the Petitioner to produce such Books of Account. 12. Aggrieved to the extent that the ACCT failed to deal with the Petitioner's contention regarding the sales figures in the assessment order being contrary to the figures computed by the STO while imposing penalty and further since there was no delegation of powers after the amendment in 1983, the STO lacked jurisdiction to impose the penalty, the Petitioner filed appeals before the Tribunal. By the impugned order dated 4th April, 2006 the learned Tribunal dismissed the appeals. 13. This Court heard the submissions of Mr. Siddhartha Ray, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.S. Padhy, learned ASC for the Department.....