Skip to content


State of Orissa Vs. Orissa Steel Corporation - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.J.C. Nos. 45 and 46 of 1978
Judge
Reported in[1983]54STC391(Orissa)
AppellantState of Orissa
RespondentOrissa Steel Corporation
Appellant AdvocateStanding Counsel (S.T.)
Respondent AdvocateB. Agarwala, Adv.
Cases ReferredM.M.T.C. of India Ltd. v. Orissa
Excerpt:
.....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 orissa state financial corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. on the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the department which..........have been referred for opinion of this court by the sales tax tribunal under section 24(1) of the orissa sales tax act of 1947 :(1) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the member, sales tax tribunal, is correct in his view that even in sales in the course of inter-state trade and commerce there can be sales inside the state if the are inside the state of orissa ?(2) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the '. sales tax tribunal, is correct in his view that there was no contravei section 5(2)(a)(a)(ii) of the o.s.t. act and the assessee is not liable to pa sales tax ?2. there can be no dispute that on the basis of the law as it stood ing two decisions of this court in the case of state of orissa v. jokarim nanda [1976] 37 stc 157 and in the.....
Judgment:

R.N. Misra, C.J.

1. At the instance of the State, two questions have been referred for opinion of this Court by the Sales Tax Tribunal under Section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act of 1947 :

(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Member, Sales Tax Tribunal, is correct in his view that even in sales in the course of inter-State trade and commerce there can be sales inside the State if the are inside the State of Orissa ?

(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the '. Sales Tax Tribunal, is correct in his view that there was no contravei Section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) of the O.S.T. Act and the assessee is not liable to pa sales tax ?

2. There can be no dispute that on the basis of the law as it stood ing two decisions of this Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Jokarim nanda [1976] 37 STC 157 and in the case of M.M.T.C. of India Ltd. v. Orissa [1976] 38 STC 189 (FB), both the questions referred should ha answered in favour of the assessee, but notice must be taken of the posi in the meantime following the Full Bench decision of this Court, the been amended by the amending Act 4 of 1978 with retrospective ef under the amended provision, the questions have got to be answered in i the State. The amended provision, it is conceded by Mr. Agarwala assessee-opposite party, has introduced a different foundation and the ba which this Court had taken its view is no more sustainable. It is a i writ applications have been filed challenging the vires of the amending in reference jurisdiction as settled by the Supreme Court, it is not open go into the question of vires. On the law as it stands with the amendmi the questions must be answered in favour of the revenue and age assessee.

3. Mr. Agarwala says that he intends to file a writ application and i the vires of the amending Act. It is open to him to do so and in ultimate decision is that the amending provision is ultra vires, it woul that the ratio of the Full Bench decision referred to above would be rest the assessee would have his way.

4. Our answer on the law as existing would, therefore, be in favoi revenue subject to what we have indicated above.

There will be no order as to costs.

J.K. Mohanty, J.

I agree.


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