Skip to content


State of Orissa Vs. Bhagabati Timber - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.J.C. No. 112 of 1976
Judge
Reported in53(1982)CLT76; [1982]50STC134(Orissa)
AppellantState of Orissa
RespondentBhagabati Timber
Appellant AdvocateStanding Counsel (S.T.)
Respondent AdvocateA.B. Mishra, ;D.C. Ray and ;P.N. Mohapatra, Advs.
Cases ReferredBhanja Bhandar v. State of Orissa
Excerpt:
.....of the sub-section (1) of section 173 of the act does not extend to the provision relating to the deposit of statutory amount as embodies in the first proviso. therefore an appeal filed within the period of limitation or within the extended period of limitation, cannot be admitted for hearing on merit unless the statutory deposit is made either with the memo of appeal or on such date as may be permitted by the court. no specific order condoning any delay for the purpose of deposit under first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 173 is necessary. [new india assurance co. ltd. v md. makubur rahman, 1993 (2) glr 430 and new india assurance co. ltd. v smt rita devi, 1997(2) glt 406, approved. new india assurance co. ltd. v birendra mohan de, 1995 (2) gau lt 218 (db) and union of india v..........from the date of receipt of the registration certificate, namely, 12th may,1972, instead of the date of registration, namely, 4th may, 1972, or with effect from the date of application for registration, namely, 22nd, april, 1972 2. the assessee in the instant case made an application under section 9-afor registration as a dealer under the orissa sales tax act. admittedly, by then on account of his turnover exceeding the prescribed limit, no liability had accrued to him. there is no dispute that the certificate of registration was received by the assessee on 12th may, 1972. the learned standing counsel relying upon the decision of this court in the case of bhanja bhandar v. state of orissa [1976] 37 stc 169 contended that once registration is granted, it shoulder late back to the date.....
Judgment:

R.N. Misra, C.J.

1. The Member, Sales Tax Tribunal, has stated this case and referred the following question for opinion of the court:

Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Member, Sales Tax Tribunal, is right in holding that the dealer is liable to pay sales tax with effect from the date of receipt of the registration certificate, namely, 12th May,1972, instead of the date of registration, namely, 4th May, 1972, or with effect from the date of application for registration, namely, 22nd, April, 1972

2. The assessee in the instant case made an application under Section 9-Afor registration as a dealer under the Orissa Sales Tax Act. Admittedly, by then on account of his turnover exceeding the prescribed limit, no liability had accrued to him. There is no dispute that the certificate of registration was received by the assessee on 12th May, 1972. The learned standing counsel relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Bhanja Bhandar v. State of Orissa [1976] 37 STC 169 contended that once registration is granted, it shoulder late back to the date of the application and liability must commence from thatdate.

In Bhanja Bhandar's case [1976] 37 STC 169 registration was under Section 9 of the Act. In a case of that type, the liability accrues from the date when under Section 4 of the Act the dealer becomes liable to pay sales tax on his turnover. The position under Section 9-A of the Act would be very different. Here, there is no liability with reference to Section 4 of the Act and before the dealer becomes statutorily liable to pay tax, with a view to deriving advantages provided under the statute he makes an application for voluntary registration.In such a case, if the liability is made to run from the date of the application, certainly the dealer would have prejudice instead of deriving any advantage.We are, therefore, inclined to take the view that the ratio of the decision in Bhanja Bhandar's case [1976] 37 STC 169 would not apply to a case of this type and the appropriate way to fix liability is from the date when the certificate of registration is received by the dealer. Our answer, therefore, in the instant case is that liability would commence from 12th May, 1972, and not earlier.

No costs.

N.K. Das, J.

3. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //