2022 (7) TMI 7

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt Year (AY) 2003-04. 2. By virtue of the above impugned order, the Tribunal affirmed the order dated 20th September, 2005 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (ACST), Koraput Range confirming the Assessment Order passed by the Sales Tax Officer (STO) raising a demand of Rs.2,49,226/- for the year in question. 3. While issuing notice in the present revision petition on 11^th January 2013, this Court has admitted the following substantial question of law: "I. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the mechanism of calculation of set off under Note-1 and Note-2 of List-C of OST Act in respect of Entry No.76 by forums below is correct in law?" 4. The background facts are that the Assessee has ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Tribunal, which has in the impugned order affirmed the orders of the STO and ACST. 7. It has been factually found by the Tribunal that no document was filed by the Assessee to disprove the allegation of the assessing authority denying the set off in respect of consumable since there was no purchase invoice produced by the Assessee. Importantly, the Tribunal noted that although in the grounds of appeal the Assessee claimed to have documents he was willing to produce, in fact he failed to produce such documents to disprove the case of the Department. 8. As regards the applicability of the decision of this Court in Luis Packaging Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, [2010] 32 VST 481 (Ori), here again the Tribunal has dealt with the said que....