PATITAPABANA BASTRALAYA Vs. THE SALES TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging validity of the order of assessment dated 06.07.2009 (Annexure-4) passed under Section 9C of the Orissa Entry Tax Act, 1999 (for short, "OET Act") for the period 01.04.2005 to 13.05.2009.

(2.) Though several prayers as well as grounds have been made/taken in the writ petition, Mr. Panda, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner confined his argument to one ground to challenge validity of the assessment order. According to Mr. Panda, the notice for assessment of tax dated 19.06.2009 (Annexure-2), which is foundation of the assessment proceeding, having been issued without allowing 30 days time as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 9C of the OET Act, the said notice is invalid and consequentially, the order of assessment and demand notice are bad in law. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Jindal Stainless Ltd. -v- State of Orissa and others, 2012 54 VST 1.

(3.) Mr. Kar, learned Standing Counsel for opposite party-Revenue submitted that on the date fixed for production of books of account, the petitioner appeared and produced the books of accounts and did not raise any objection to the validity of the notice and therefore, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner for not allowing him a minimum period of 30 days' time as prescribed under Section 9C(2) of the OET Act. Therefore, the notice not providing 30 days' time is not invalid. Further, notice for assessment of tax issued in Form E-30 as a result of audit, does not require to allow 30 days time to the dealer to produce books of account. Hence, liberty has been given to the Assessing Officer to grant time less than 30 days in the notice. It is further submitted that the provision of Section 9C(2) of the OET Act is not mandatory, it is directory in nature.