IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S. Muralidhar, M. S. Raman, JJ.
M/s. Shivam Agro – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
STREV No. 32 of 2015
Decided On : 12-12-2022
Entry Tax - Refund of Excess Amount - The court clarified the right of the Assessee to apply for a refund of any excess amount paid in accordance with the law, and ruled in favor of the Assessee regarding the liability under the Orissa Entry Tax Act.
Fact of the Case:
The court modified the order to clarify the Assessee's right to apply for a refund of any excess amount paid and set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal upholding the liability under the Orissa Entry Tax Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the Assessee, ruling that the question regarding the liability under the Orissa Entry Tax Act was answered in the negative, in favor of the Petitioner-Assessee and against the Department.
Issues: The issue was whether 'Chokad' is exigible to Entry tax as per Entry 66 of the Part I of the Schedule appended to the Orissa Entry Tax Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the judgment in STREV No.31 of 2011 (State of Odisha v. M/s. Geetashree Industries), which answered the question in favor of the Assessee.
Final Decision: The revision petition was disposed of in favor of the Assessee, and the impugned order of the Tribunal upholding the liability under the Orissa Entry Tax Act was set aside.
JUDGMENT
1. On being mentioned, the matter is taken up today.
2. Perused the memo filed today in Court. The Court clarifies that after para 4 of the order dated 7th December, 2022; the following para will be added as para 5 and the existing para 5 will be renumbered as para 6:
'5. It will be open to the Assessee now to apply for refund of any excess amount paid by it in accordance with law.'
3. Accordingly, the order dated 7th December, 2022 is modified as under:
'1. Admit.
2. The following question is framed for consideration by this Court:
'Whether 'Chokad' is exigible to Entry tax as per Entry 66 of the Part I of the Schedule appended to the Orissa Entry Tax Act ?
3. The above question now stands answered in favour of the Assessee by virtue of the judgment dated 2nd August, 2022 in STREV No.31 of 2011 (State of Odisha v. M/s. Geetashree Industries). Accordingly, the said question is answered in the negative i.e. in favour of the Petitioner-Assessee and against the Department.
4. As a result, the impugned order of the Tribunal upholding the liability under the OET Act against the present Petitioner is hereby set aside. The consequential imposition of penalty by the Tribunal under Section 9C (5) of the OET Act is also hereby set aside.
5. It will be open to the Assessee now to apply for refund of any excess amount paid by it in accordance with law.'
6. The revision petition is disposed of in the above terms. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.'
4. The order dated 7th December, 2022 is modified to the extent indicated above.
5. Remove the already uploaded order dated 7th December, 2022 from the website and corrected order be uploaded.
The right of the Assessee to apply for a refund of any excess amount paid in accordance with the law.
The absence of willful or deliberate attempt to evade payment justified the court's decision to set aside the levy of penalty under Section 10(2) of the Act.
The court highlighted that entry tax must be assessed legally before any collection is enforced, establishing a process for potential refunds based on prior court decisions.
The main legal point established is that 'Chuni' is not considered 'cattle feed' under the Orissa Entry Tax Act, 1999, based on the nature of the product, its use, and the statutory interpretation pr....
Provisions of Section 11B that it governs refund of duty and interest from the relevant date and not penalty. Considering the provisions of Section 11B (supra), I find that the amount of penalty paid....
Compliance with prescribed procedure and depositing 50% of the amount demanded before filing a revision petition.
Remand required when tribunal fails to address rectification jurisdiction and misapplies VAT rules to advance tax refunds.
An endorsement rejecting a refund request without any statutory basis and overturning an earlier order sanctioning the refund is legally invalid.
The court affirmed that demand notices for IGST short payment are valid under the Customs Act, despite claimed bona fide mis-declaration, as there were no supporting documents for amending the bill o....
The validation of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1990, by the Supreme Court negates claims for refunds based on prior declarations of unconstitutionality.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.