Skip to content


Babaji Charan Sahu Vs. State of Orissa - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSpecial Jurisdiction Case No. 170 of 1977
Judge
Reported in[1982]51STC408(Orissa)
AppellantBabaji Charan Sahu
RespondentState of Orissa
Appellant AdvocateS.K. Patnaik, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateStanding Counsel (S.T.)
Cases ReferredBhanja Bhandar v. State of Orissa
Excerpt:
.....it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the act, 1972 or the act, 1951. [air 2002 orissa 130 overruled]. -- state financial corporations act, 1951. section 29; discharge of loan orissa forest act (14 of 1972), section 56 confiscation of vehicle - held, the authorities under section 56 of the orissa forest act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of orissa state financial corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the..........section 24(1) of the orissa sales tax act, 1947. the questions referred are:(1) whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the fixation of liability from 1st april, 1972, is justified ?(2) whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment under section 12(5) of the orissa sales tax act is justified after 13th, december, 1972?(3) whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty is justified when the petitioner has applied for registration 2. we are concerned with the period 1972-73. it is conceded that liability would not accrue unless the gross turnover exceeded rs. 25,000 within 12 months preceding 1st april, 1972. the learned standing counsel concedes that on the basis of the findings of the additional tribunal, the turnover up to.....
Judgment:

R.N. Misra, C.J.

1. The Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, Orissa, has stated this case and referred three questions for opinion of the court at the assessee's instance on an application under Section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. The questions referred are:

(1) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the fixation of liability from 1st April, 1972, is justified ?

(2) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment under Section 12(5) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act is justified after 13th, December, 1972?

(3) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty is justified when the petitioner has applied for registration

2. We are concerned with the period 1972-73. It is conceded that liability would not accrue unless the gross turnover exceeded Rs. 25,000 within 12 months preceding 1st April, 1972. The learned standing counsel concedes that on the basis of the findings of the Additional Tribunal, the turnover up to 31st March, 1972, was in the range of Rs. 22,000 and odd. Therefore, with effect from 1st April, 1972, there could be no liability. The concession appears to be fair. Therefore, the answer to the first question must be that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the fixation of liability from 1st April, 1972, was not justified. When the matter goes back to the Additional Tribunal in terms of Section 24(5) of the Act, the Additional Tribunal will hear the parties and find out what exactly is the date from which liability can be saddled.

3. So far as the imposition of penalty is concerned, the assessment in the instant case is by taking the year as a unit. The application for registration was dated 13th December, 1972, but was allowed long after on 3rd September, 1973. It has already been held by this Court in the case of Bhanja Bhandar v. State of Orissa [1976] 37 S.T.C. 169, that in a case of this type when registration is granted, it must date back to the date of the application for registration. Since the assessee became a registered dealer during the period, he cannot be assessed under Section 12(5) of the Act for that period and there could also be no liability for penalty under the Act for non-registration. The second and the third questions are, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee by holding that the assessment under Section 12(5) of the Act was not called for nor was any justification available for visiting him with any penalty.There would be no order for costs.

B.K. Behera, J.

4. I agree.


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