SRINIVAS TRADERS Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 11.08.2010 (Annexure-1) passed by opposite party No.2-Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal, Cuttack (for short, 'the Tribunal) in S.A. No. 1539/2004-05 pertaining to the year 2002-03 on the ground that the said order suffers the vice of perversity as the grounds not taken either by the petitioner or by opposite party No.1-Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Odisha, Cuttack have been considered and the order passed by opposite party No.3-Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela-ICircle, Rourkela (for short, 'STO-Rourkela') has been confirmed illegally.

(2.) Mr. D. Pati, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a proprietorship concern and is carrying on business in manufacturing and sale of corrugated cardboard boxes. The manufacturing unit of the petitioner is situated at CTS-34 Market, Basanti Colony, Rourkela, Dist: Sundargarh. The additional place of business is running at Rayagada in the name and style of "S.R.M. Industry". Opposite Party No.3-STO-Rourkela examined the books of accounts and passed the order of assessment on 06.02.2004 (Annexure-2) for the year 2002-03 raising a tax demand of Rs.1,78,396/-. The said extra demand of tax has been raised on the ground that the petitioner has not maintained stock account although it is a manufacturing unit and that it has obtained registration number in respect of additional place of business and has submitted returns to opposite party No.5-Sales Tax Officer, Koraput-II Circle, Rayagada (for short, 'STO-Koraput') without obtaining permission from opposite party No.1 for filing the consolidated return. Ultimately, the Assessing Officer resorted to best judgment assessment by making addition of Rs.6,34,889.61 on account of sale of waste paper (scrap material) and making further addition on account of turnover of additional place of business. Accordingly, opposite party no. 3 determined the Gross Turnover and Taxable Turnover. Opposite Party No.4, the 1st Appellate Authority taking into consideration various material facts and evidence available on record held that same turnover cannot be taxed twice and accordingly allowed adjustment of tax amounting to Rs.1,04,733/- deposited by the petitioner at Rayagada and waived the levy of interest of Rs.153/- made under Section 12(4-a) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act (for short, 'OST Act'). Opposite party No.4 also restricted the addition of 2% of the gross sale value towards sale of scrap instead of 10% of the gross sale value as done by the Assessing Officer and accordingly passed the 1st Appellate order under Annexure-3.

(3.) Mr. Pati vehemently argued that in absence of any appeal or cross objection filed by opposite party No.1, it was obligatory on the part of opposite party No.2-learned Tribunal to adjudicate the sole issue raised by the petitioner, i.e., regarding enhancement of turnover, but opposite party No.2 in a peculiar manner unknown to law and in excess of power conferred upon it passed the impugned order dated 11.08.2010 holding that two points arising out of assessment have not been dealt with properly by opposite party No.4 and passed the order ignoring the principles of natural justice. Such action of opposite party No.2 is illegal and arbitrary. Mr. Pati further submitted that though the appeal was heard on 04.08.2009 by opposite party No.2, the impugned order was passed on 11.08.2010 i.e. after lapse of one year and two months. Concluding his argument, Mr. Pati submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal may be set aside.