2022 (7) TMI 919

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of filing of return. Challenge in the petition is also to subsequent order dated 30th January 2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax (ACST) (North Zone) dismissing the revision petitions filed by the Petitioners. In other words, the ACST, who passed the said order dated 30th January 2012, declined to interfere with the order of re-computation passed by the STO. 2. While directing notice to issue in the present petition on 22nd October 2014, this Court stayed the operation of the above orders subject to the Petitioners' depositing 50% of the demanded amount before the Opposite Parties in two equal installments on or before 22nd January, 2015. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners confirms that the above order has ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r of goods to the branches/agents. By an order dated 15th July 1986, for the year 1982-83, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the STO for reassessment in the light of the observations made in that order. 5. This reassessment was completed on 29th July 1994 holding the dispatches made by the Petitioners to be inter-State sales. Then the 1st Appellate Authority reversed this finding by an order dated 30th January 1995 holding the dispatches made by the Petitioners to the consignment agents to be stock transfers. By the common order dated 25th October 1996, the Tribunal disposed of the second appeal filed by the State of Odisha. The reference made to this Court for the years 1977-78 to 1983-84 in SJC Nos.2 to 8 of 1989 were disposed of by an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Commissioner of Commercial Taxes stating that by an order dated 16th November 2007, the Supreme Court had already settled the issue once and for all. The Petitioners' prayer that 'F' Form should be accepted as 'C' Form was rejected by the Supreme Court. It is pointed out the Petitioners have been frustrating the above order for the last ten years by coming back to the Court eight times on various issues. The re-computation order dated 24th January 2008 was passed by the Assessing Authority in obedience to the above order dated 16th November, 2007 of the Supreme Court. It bifurcated the turnover of the Petitioners into two parts i.e. transactions with 'C' Form and those without 'C' Forms. The turnover without 'C' Form was taxed at the State ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e filed by the Petitioners in this Court. Those were dismissed on 7th October 2009, referring to the earlier order dated 10th April 2008, and noting therefore that "nothing remains to be decided in the present writ petition". A review petition was thereafter filed which was dismissed by this Court on 22nd March, 2010. Special Leave Petitions were filed in Supreme Court, which were dismissed by the Supreme Court on 20th August 2010, granting liberty to the Petitioners to approach the "appropriate authorities". 10. Then on 20th September 2010, the Assessee filed revision petitions against the re-computation order. After noting all of the above proceedings, the revisional authority i.e. the ACST by order dated 30th January 2012 on upheld the ....