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

2022 Supreme(Ori) 604

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S. Muralidhar, M. S. Raman, JJ.
M/s. Kalinga Sponge Iron Ltd., Sundargarh – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Orissa, Cuttack & Anr. – Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 4313 of 2014
Decided On : 12-12-2022

Advocates appeared:
Sidhartha Ray, Advocate, S.K. Pradhan, Advocate

The uncontroverted averments and established legal position can lead to setting aside an assessment order and quashing consequential demands.

Headnote:

Notice - Assessment Order under Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 - The court set aside the assessment order and quashed the consequential demands based on uncontroverted averments and legal position established in a previous case.

Fact of the Case:

The petition challenged an assessment order under the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 for the period of 1st April, 2007 to 31st March, 2011. An interim order was passed staying the assessment order, and despite the lapse of over eight years, no counter affidavit was filed.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the impugned assessment order cannot be sustained in law based on uncontroverted averments and the legal position established in a previous case.

Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the assessment order under the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 and the lack of filing a counter affidavit despite the lapse of time.

Ratio Decidendi: The uncontroverted averments and the legal position established in a previous case led to the court setting aside the assessment order and quashing the consequential demands.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the assessment order was set aside with no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT

1. Notice was issued in the present petition which challenges an assessment order dated 20th June, 2013 passed under Section 43 of the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (OVAT Act) for the period of 1st April, 2007 to 31st March, 2011 on 2nd July, 2014. On the same day, an interim order was passed staying the said assessment order.

2. Despite lapse of over eight years now, no counter affidavit has been filed.

3. In particular, there is no denial of the averment of the Petitioner that prior to the proceedings under Section 43 of the OVAT Act for the aforementioned period, even before the completion of the self- assessment as well as the audit assessment. This averment in Para-3.5, 3.7 and 4.2 has remained uncontroverted.

4. In view of the legal position explained by this Court in Keshab Automobiles v. State of Odisha (Order dated 1st December, 2021 in STREV No.64 of 2016) which has been upheld by the Supreme Court of India, the impugned assessment order cannot obviously be sustained in law and is accordingly hereby set aside. The consequential demands raised are also hereby quashed.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in the above terms but, in the circumstances with no order as to costs.

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