SHYAMSUNDER SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner calls in question legality of order of the Accounts Member II, Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal (in short, "the Tribunal"), in directing restoration of the enhancement which was reduced in appeal by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Cuttack II Range (in short, "acst" ).

(2.) THE background facts shorn of unnecessary details are as follows : For the assessment year 1985-86, the petitioner was assessed to tax by the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack II Circle, under section 12 (4) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (in short, "the Act") which resulted in extra demand of Rs. 9,950. The turnovers returned were not accepted and the gross turnover was determined by adding Rs. 2 lakhs to the disclosed purchases, and adding 15 per cent thereto. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the ACST. The said authority reduced the enhancement being of the view that the enhancement of the disclosed purchases by a margin of Rs. 1 lakh to cover up the suppressions would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly the petitioner was granted a tax relief of Rs. 4,557. The petitioner carried the matter in further appeal before the Tribunal. From the records of the Tribunal, we find that the appeal was admitted on April 4, 1992. Notice was directed to be issued to the respondent, State of Orissa represented by the Commissioner of Sales Tax on that date. It was indicated that if it desired to file cross-objection under sub-section (3) of section 23 of the Act, the same was to be done within sixty days from the date of receipt of the notice. The notice was served on April 20, 1992, but no cross-objection was filed. The case was allotted to the Accounts Member II for disposal on July 9, 1992. The date of hearing was fixed to August 25, 1992. On the said date the petitioner who was present filed memorandum of appearance. The matter was adjourned to August 26, 1992, by the Registrar on the ground that the Presiding Officer was otherwise busy. On August 26, 1992, the case was adjourned to September 26, 1992, for hearing. On September 26, 1992, the learned counsel for the appellant and the Additional State Representative were heard. The matter was directed to be placed on September 29, 1992, for orders. By the impugned order the appeal was dismissed; but that is not the end of the matter. The Member has directed restoration of the enhancement made by the assessing officer with the observation that the Assistant Commissioner had erred in interfering with the assessment made by the assessing officer.

(3.) SECTION 23 (3) which is relevant reads as follows :