STEEL TRADING CO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made under section 24 (1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, at the instance of the assessee, by the Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, stating a case and referring the following questions for opinion of this Court :

(2.) THE short facts to appreciate the real point in issue are these : The assessee is a partnership firm carrying on business in iron and steel materials at Rourkela. It got registered as a dealer under the Orissa Sales Tax Act and was assigned registration No. RL 2063. For the quarter ending 30th September, 1971, the assessee submitted a return of its turnover disclosing a sum of Rs. 4,047. 20, but offered to pay tax on Rs. 260 only. The assessing officer found that the total purchase was to the tune of Rs. 12,22,361. 88. There was a branch transfer as also inter-State sale amounting to about Rs. 6,33,325. 66. The record is not clear as to how must out of this amount was branch transfer and what exactly was the quantum of inter-State sale. As the purchase was on the basis of declarations and the goods were allowed to move outside the State, the sale price was added to the turnover under the proviso. Ultimately, the taxable turnover for the quarter was estimated at Rs. 15,83,314. 15 and the tax was demanded. In appeal, the assessment was upheld by the Assistant Commissioner. In second appeal, the Member, Additional Tribunal, while agreeing with the assessee that he had not been given a full opportunity and, therefore, the assessment should be vacated and there should be a reassessment, indicated a definite opinion in regard to the petitioner's liability in law in respect of the inter-State sale. The three questions, which have been posed for opinion, are indeed one, namely :

(3.) SO far as the inter-State sale is concerned, as we have already indicated, its quantum has yet to be determined by the Sales Tax Officer, because there is no clear determination as to its extent. In view of the Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Joharimal Gajananda [[1976] 37 S. T. C. 157], we must hold that the same cannot be added to the assessee's turnover. We may quote what has been said in the reported decision :