SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(SC) 1032

2008(5) Supreme 281
Supreme Court of india
(From Orissa High Court)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat and P. Sathasivam, JJ.
M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. — Appellant
versus
Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela-I Circle & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4290 of 2008
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.16781 of 2006)
Decided on : 10-07-2008

Advocates appeared:
G.E. Vahanvati, S.G., Parag P. Tripathi, A.S.G., Altaf H. Nayak, A.G., Shail Kumar Dwivedi, A.A.G., Ranjit Kumar, Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advs., Ms. S. Borthakur, Sunil Kumar Jian, Mrs. Kirti Renu Mishra, Gopal Singh, Anukul Raj, Ms. Sweta Singh, Ms. Hemantoka Wahi, Ms. Pinky, Ms. Jesal, R. Sathish, Bharat Swarrop Sharma, Vijay Kumar Pandita, Dayan Krishnan, Ms. Neelam Sharma, T.C. Sharma, Mrs., Neera Gupta, Ms. Asha G. Nair, Ms. Vismai Rao, D.S. Mahra, V.G. Pragasam, S.J. Aristotle, Prabu Ramasubramaniam, Vikrant Singh Bais, B.S. Banthia, Khwairakpam Nobin Singh, David Rao, Tarun Jamwal, S. Biswajit Meitei, Vijay Prakash, Sanjay R. Hegde, Amit Kr. Chawla, Arun Varma, Vikrant Yadav, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Manjit Singh, Harikesh Singh, T.V. George, Ajay Pal, Avijit Roy, Ranjan Mazumdar (for Ms/. Corporate Law Group), Ms. Vandana Mishra, Sahdev Singh, Mrs. Vibha Dwivedi, G.V. Rao, Ms. A. Subhashini, Tabraj, Ashwani Garg, Anis Suhrawardy and R. Nedumaran, Advocates appearing for parties.

Important Point
Appellate order must be a speaking one and well reasoned.

Headnote:(a)Constitution of India,1950 – Article 136 – In normal course, the plea relating to the merits of the assessment when a statutory remedy has been availed is not enterained – But the casual manner in which the first appellate authority has disposed of the appeal and total non-application of mind calls for interference. (Paras 8 and 9)

       (b)Adminisrative Law – Appellate order must be a speaking one and well reasoned – Without reasoning, an order becomes lifeless. (Para 10)

       (2003)11 SCC 519; (1971) 1 All ER 1148; 1974 ICR 120 (NIRC) – Relied upon.

       (2004)3 SCC 1 – Referred.

       Facts of the case:

       1.The appellant, a Public Sector Undertaking carries on business in manufacture and sale of Iron & Steel and Chemical Fertiliser as its finished product and bi-product, surplus and rejected articles, in course of inter-state trade and commerce and export. Apart from that, the appellant-Company effects transfer of stock of goods to its branches located at various places of the country.

       2.For the assessment year 2001-02, notice was issued under Rule 12(5) of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa), Rules, 1957 for the purpose of assessment under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. After examination of the books of accounts produced, an extra demand of Rs.19,25,41,763.00 was raised.

       3.Questioning correctness of the assessment made, an appeal was preferred before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Sundergarh Range, Rourkela. During the pendency of the appeal, an application for stay was filed. The Assistant Commissioner directed payment of part of the demand. An application for revision was filed before the Commissioner who directed payment of Rs.10.00 Crores.

       4.A Writ Petition was filed before the High Court . A Division Bench of the High Court directed deposit of Rs.2.00 Crores. The said order was questioned in S.L.P.(C) No.5314/2006.

       5.A few days thereafter, on 19.04.2006, the Assistant Commissioner disposed of the appeal filed dismissing the same and confirming the order of assessment. A Second Appeal was filed before the Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal. An application for stay was also filed. The Commissioner directed deposit of Rs.15.00 Crores.

       6.The said order was challenged before the High Court. By the impugned order, the High Court disposed of the said petition without expressing any opinion on merits but observing that the matter was under examination by this Court.

       Finding of the Court :

       The appellate authority has passed the order without application of mind ad in a very casual manner.

       Result : Appeal allowed, mater remitted back.

Judgment

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2.Challenge in this appeal is to the Order passed by a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court disposing of the writ petition without any decision on merits because in respect of the assessment year in question, i.e. 2001-02, an Order was earlier passed by this Court on 31.03.2006.

3.A brief reference to the factual aspects will be necessary. The appellant, a Public Sector Undertaking carries on business in manufacture and sale of Iron & Steel and Chemical Fertiliser as its finished product and bi-product, surplus and rejected articles, in course of inter-state trade and commerce and export. Apart from that, the appellant-Company effects transfer of stock of goods to its branches located at various places of the country. For the assessment year 2001-02, notice was issued under Rule 12(5) of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa), Rules, 1957 (in short ‘Central Rules’) for the purpose of assessment under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short the ‘Act’). After examination of the books of accounts produced, an extra demand of Rs.19,25,41,763.00 was raised. The appellant-Company had disclosed net sale and transfer of goods during the year under assessment in question as follows :

1.Sales U/s 8(l)(a)(b) Rs.714,18,82,639.06

2.Sales U/s 8(2)(b) Rs. 10,37,23,857.45

3.Export Sales Rs. 10,95,977.00

4.Branch/Stocktransfer

Rs.1130,24,48,338.61

Total Rs.1854,91,50,812.12

The Assessing Officer found that certain declaration forms in Form ‘C’ were not produced and, therefore, the differential tax was to be levied. With reference to Clause (a) of Section 3, it was held that the sales made under the Annual Memorandum of Understanding (M0U), which were treated as Bank transfers are in fact, sales made in course of inter-state Trade and commerce and, therefore, are subject to tax. Accordingly tax was levied.

Questioning correctness of the assessment made, an appeal was preferred before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Sundergarh Range, Rourkela. During the pendency of the appeal, an application for stay was filed. The Assistant Commissioner directed payment of part of the demand. An application for revision was filed before the Commissioner, who, by Order dated 28.12.2005 in Revision Case No. SU-87/05-06 directed payment of Rs.10.00 Crores. A Writ Petition was filed before the High Court pointing out that the decision of this Court in Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.,1 (2004 (3) SCC 1) had full application. A Division Bench of the High Court, by Order dated 15.02.2006 directed deposit of Rs.2.00 Crores. The said Order was questioned in S.L.P.(C) No.5314/2006. In the said special leave petition, several States and Union Territories were impleaded as opposite parties because it was pointed out that requisite tax under the Act had already been paid in different States and Union territories. This Court passed the following Order on 31.03.2006:

“Issue notice.

There shall be interim stay in the meanwhile. Any payment already made in compliance of the High Court’s Order shall be without prejudice to the claims involved.”

A few days thereafter, on 19.04.2006, the Assistant Commissioner disposed of the appeal filed dismissing the same and confirming the Order of assessment. A Second Appeal was filed before the Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal (in short the Tribunal). An application for stay was also filed. By Order dated 14.08.2006, the Commissioner directed deposit of Rs.15.00 Crores. The said Order was challenged before the High Court and, as noted above, by the impugned Order, the High Court disposed of the said petition without expressing any opinion on merits but observing that the matter was under examination by this Court.

4.Though various points were urged in respect of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even without examination of various issues raised, by a cryptic and practically non-reasoned Order, the Assistant Commissioner has dismissed the appeal filed.

5.It is






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top