ORWO LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present application under Section 45 (2) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') praying that the Appellate Tribunal Sales Tax be required to stay the case and refer the following questions of law for determination:-

(2.) The petitioner-company was engaged in business of dealing in photographic goods with its head office at Stadium House, First Floor Block, V.N. Road, Mumbai and its branch office at Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. The Branch office was registered under the provisions of the Act. It filed its regular return of sales tax and was assessed for the year 1982-83 on 22nd October, 1984 under Section 23 (3) of the Act which later on was reopened under Section 24 of the local Act. The petitioner raised various objections to the reopening of the assessment. However, despite objections of the petitioner the assessment was made vide order dated 15th May, 1985 thereby raising a tax demand of Rs.1046145.50 which included tax of Rs.763465.58 and interest of Rs.282680.22 by way if disallowing deductions under Section 4 (2) (a) (v) of the Local Act.

(3.) The petitioner challenged the order of re-assessment by filing an appeal which was also dismissed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, vide his order dated 14th January, 1993 and the Second appeal preferred by the assessee before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal also met the same fate. The order of the Tribunal dated 9th April, 2001 is the foundation for filing an application under Section 45 (2) of the Act, a copy of which has been annexed to the petition as Annexure P-5 and P-6 respectively. The case of the petitioner is that the above substantial questions of law arise for consideration of the Court as the the penalty action initiated by the authorities under Section 56 of the Act culminated into the judgment of the Criminal Court holding that no criminal case was made out against the petitioner-company and as such no penalty could have been imposed. However, the Department issued a notice on 3rd September, 1985 to which the petitioner filed a reply and finally vide order dated 6th September, 1985 the penalty was imposed upon the petitioner.