SMC POWER GENERATION LIMITED Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since in all these writ petitions, the questions of law involved are similar, learned counsel for the petitioner requested to take up W.P.(C) No.11126 of 2008 as leading case. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have no objection to the same. As such, W.P.(C) No.11126 of 2008 is taken up as leading case and the order to be passed herein, will govern the fate of other two writ petitions, i.e., 11127 and 11128 of 2008.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset fairly submitted that he is not canvassing any other points raised, but he is restricting his argument only on the point of extension of time, which ought to have been sought for within six months from the date of receipt of the Audit Visit Report. That having not been done, the impugned order of assessment is barred by limitation. In order to appreciate the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, some facts as well as relevant dates need be considered.

(3.) Pursuant to an audit under the provisions of the OVAT Act, the Audit Visit Report (AVR) was submitted on 01.06.2007 under Section 41(4) of the OVAT Act. The Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Sambalpur Range, Sambalpur (Opposite Party No.3) received the Audit Visit Report on 05.07.2007. Accordingly, notice under Section 42 of the OVAT Act was issued by the Assessing Authority (Opposite Party No.3) on 04.10.2007 which was received by the petitioner on 10.10.2007 requiring him to appear on 13.11.2007. Thus, according to him, the period of limitation has expired on 04.01.2008 or 09.04.2008, i.e., six months from the date of issuance of notice to the petitioner, but extension of further six months time was sought for as it is reflected in the order dated 07.06.2008, which reads as under: