AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 1630
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... learned advocate, Standing Counsel, for revenue. 2. The revision petition was moved on 21st October, 2024. We reproduce below paragraphs 1 to 6 of our order made that day. "1. Mr. Rath, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, the revision be admitted against impugned order dated 16th March, 2018 made by Odisha Sales Tax Tribunal in two second appeals dealt with thereby. He submits, the order was not to knowledge of his client. Upon having information that the appeal had been dealt with, his client applied for certified copy and soon thereafter filed for revision. He submits further, the second appeals preferred by his client and revenue were all dismissed by impugned order. 2. Mr. Mishra, learned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ii) Judgment dated 18th April, 2024 of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no. 5027 of 2024 (Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley and others). He clarifies, the Supreme Court restored order of the learned single Judge in the High Court dismissing the writ petition on ground of delay. 3. Mr. Mishra next draws attention to sub-section(2) in section 98 of Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 to submit, communication of impugned order cannot be called into question on petitioner having acted upon it. He draws attention to extract from the dispatch register showing impugned order dispatched by hand for communication on 20th March, 2018 and a signature acknowledging receipt. On query made he submits, the signature was made by learned advocate for p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n (2) in section 98, revenue may file affidavit to demonstrate service of impugned order by hand, as shown in the dispatch register, to petitioner, after receipt of which the balance tax was paid on 31st March, 2018. The affidavit will be accepted on adjourned date, upon advance copy served." 3. Revenue filed affidavit. In it stands disclosed, inter alia, page extract from the dispatch register showing dispatch of impugned order by hand and initialed on 20th March, 2018, said to be by learned advocate engaged by petitioner in the Tribunal. So we have assertion that there was service to learned advocate of the party. Mr. Rath relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in Benarsi Krishna Committee v. Karmyogi Shelters (P) Ltd. reported in (20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....accordance with the order, against which the petition has been moved. There is a proviso which says that the fate of the deposit will depend on adjudication in the revision. Sub-section (6) in section 80 along with the proviso is reproduced below. "(6) Notwithstanding that a petition has been moved under sub-section (1), the tax or any other dues under this Act shall be paid in accordance with the order against which the petition has been moved : Provided that if, as a result of the petition, any change in the assessment becomes necessary, the High Court may direct the assessing authority to amend the assessment and the assessing authority shall amend the assessment accordingly and, thereupon, the excess amount paid, if an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment dated 1st December, 2021 in STREV no.64 of 2016 (M/s. Keshab Automobiles v. State of Odisha) paragraph 22, reproduced below. "22. From the above discussion, the picture that emerges is that if the self-assessment under Section 39 of the OVAT Act for tax periods prior to 1st October, 2015 are not "accepted‟ either by a formal communication or an acknowledgment by the Department, then such assessment cannot be sought to be re-opened under Section 43 (1) of the OVAT Act and further subject to the fulfillment of other requirements of that provision as it stood prior to 1st October, 2015." He submits, the reassessment was bad ab initio because there was no formal communication or acknowledgement in respect of his client's ....