Skip to content


State of Orissa Vs. Shree Shree Goursundar Rice and Oil Mill - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.J.C. No. 17 of 1977
Judge
Reported in[1982]50STC202(Orissa)
AppellantState of Orissa
RespondentShree Shree Goursundar Rice and Oil Mill
Appellant AdvocateStanding Counsel (S.T.)
Respondent AdvocateS.C. Mohapatra and ;D.K. Mohapatra, Advs.
Excerpt:
.....for this purpose the court has the discretion either to grant time to make the deposit or not. no formal order condoning the delay is necessary, an order of adjournment would suffice. the provisions of limitation embodied in the substantive provision 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..........referred, therefore, is against the revenue and we must hold that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the member, additional sales tax tribunal, was correct in allowing tax relief to the assessee.the assessee shall have its costs. hearing fee is assessed at rs. 100 (one hundred). b.k. behera, j.5. i agree.
Judgment:

R.N. Misra, C.J.

1. On the application of the State under Section 24(2)(b) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), this Court by order dated 10th January, 1979, directed the Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, to state a case and refer the following question for the opinion of the court:

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, was correct in allowing tax relief to the opposite party (assessee) in respect of the purchases of groundnut amounting to Rs. 1,25,173.81 ?

2. The assessee is a registered dealer under the Act. It carried on business in milling rice and oil-seeds at Barpalli in the District of Sambalpur. For the period 1972-73 it claimed exemption from tax in terms of serial No. 56 on a turnover of Rs. 1,25,173.81 by contending that groundnut worth that amount had been utilised for manufacture of oil. The appropriate declaration in form D was produced to support the claim. The assessing officer rejected the declaration and levied tax. The first appellate authority sustained the assessment. In second appeal, the Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, accepted the claim and directed that there would be no demand on the turnover of Rs. 1,25,173.81. In this background the case has been stated in terms of our order.

3. There is no dispute that the declaration in form D has been furnished for the entire amount. The entry under serial No. 56 and the declaration in form D are to the following effect:

Serial No. 56. Raw materials, The exemption shall bei. e., goods which allowed for a period ofdirectly go into five years from the datethe composition of from which such registeredthe finished pro- dealer has started prod-ducts, when sold uction, provided thatto aregistered he or his authoriseddealer who is a agent furnishes a truemanufacturer declaration in form Dinside the State appended below:and who has star-ted productionafter the 1st April,1969.Form D

I/We... hereby declare that the goods purchased by me/us in bill/cash memo No... dated... from... shall be used as raw materials for the purposes of manufacture inside the State, i. e., as goods which will directly go into the composition of the finished product to be manufactured by me/us. I/We further declare that I/we started production from....

According to the learned standing counsel since a declaration has been contemplated it must necessarily relate to transactions between two registered dealers and would not cover a case of purchase from a grower. Admittedly, in the instant case the purchases were not from registered dealers. Indisputably, the liability to pay purchase tax is on the assessee when he buys the goods from even growers. The intention in providing the exemption for five years is obviously to help new industries, and the scheme contemplates of a declaration not to be given to the selling registered dealer but to the department for claiming exemption from tax for five years. Merely because the entry under serial No. 56 contemplates of a declaration, there is no warrant for the proposition that the declaration should be meant for a selling registered dealer. Under the Act, declarations of different types have been contemplated. For instance, declaration in form No. I contemplated in Notification No. SRO. 633/77 dated 9th September, 1977, with reference to serial No. 25 is also a declaration of similar type. The note appended is to the following effect:

In case of goods liable to sales tax this declaration is to be furnished to the selling dealer. In case of goods liable to purchase tax, this declaration is to be attached to the return of the dealer.

Since ours is a case where purchase tax is leviable, to avail exemption, the declaration has to be furnished along with the return. The submission of the learned standing counsel is wholly untenable.

4. Our answer to the question referred, therefore, is against the revenue and we must hold that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, was correct in allowing tax relief to the assessee.

The assessee shall have its costs. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 100 (one hundred).

B.K. Behera, J.

5. I agree.


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