JUDGMENT :

MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.

THE CHALLENGE

Seeking revision of Order dated 01.11.2022 passed by the Odisha Sales Tax Tribunal in Second Appeal bearing No. 165 (ET) of 2010-11 preferred by the petitioner- company directed against Order dated 23.10.2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, North Zone, Odisha, Cuttack in the first appeal bearing No. AA/07/OET/ACST (Asst)/SA/2007-08 in connection with Assessment framed under Section 9C of the Odisha Entry Tax Act, 1999, for the tax periods from 01.04.2005 to 30.11.2006, vide Order dated 15.02.2007 the petitioner has posed the following questions of law in the revision petition under Section 19:

“I. Whether, on the facts and circumstances the Hon’ble Full Bench, Odisha sales Tax Tribunal, Cuttack is right in law to hold that the Assistant Commissioner of the Range has jurisdiction to pass the Order of Assessment under the Odisha Entry Tax Act of the petitioner, who is LTU dealer?

II. Whether, on the facts and circumstances the Hon’ble Full Bench, Odisha sales Tax Tribunal, Cuttack is right in law to hold the Order of Assessment for the period 01.04.2005 to 18.10.2005 passed under Section 9C of the OET Act read with Rule 15B of OET Rules shall survive, when section 9C and Rule 15 was inserted in the statue on 19.05.2005 and19.10.2005, respectively?

III. Whether, the Hon’ble Full Bench, Odisha sales Tax Tribunal, Cuttack is right in law to hold the Sales Value of the goods to be termed as 'Purchase Value' under Section 2J of the OET Act in case of stock transfer of goods for the purpose of levy of Entry Tax under Section 3 of the OET Act?

IV. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case stated above the Hon’ble Full Bench, Odisha sales Tax Tribunal, Cuttack is right in law to hold the penalty is imposable in the present case of the petitioner, when issue involved being point of interpretation of law, and the petitioner being a public sector undertaking under the Ministry of Defence, Government of India?

V. Any other question of law as the Honourable Court deems fit and proper out of the said order of the Full Bench, Odisha Sales Tax Tribunal, Cuttack.”

2. Sri Chittaranjan Das, learned Advocate for the petitioner furnished following Additional Question of Law to the Court on 23.02.2023:

“Whether the Assessment Order and the consequential orders are not liable to be invalidated as the Audit Team constituted in absence of an “Assistant Commissioner” as provided under Section 9B of the OET Act and Rule 11 of the OET Rules read with Section 41 of the OVAT Act and Rule 43 of the OVAT Rules?”

2.1. This Court taking into record the said Additional Question of Law passed the following Order:

“3. Notice. Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of opposite party. Since he accepts notice, let a copy of the petition and the application be served on him within three working days.”

2.2. The instant sales tax revision has been taken up along with STREV No.2 of 2023 : Bharat Earth Moving Limited Vrs. State of Odisha which is relating to audit assessment under Section 42 of the OVAT Act for analogous hearing.

2.3. Both the counsel for either side conceded to the proposal for disposal of the present matter along with aforesaid STREV No.2 of 2023.

2.4. Sri Chittaranjan Das, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the Additional Question of Law as posed herein above has already been answered in favour of petitioner by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of State of Odisha Vrs. Daehsan Trading (India) Ltd., STREV No.117 of 2013, vide Order dated 13^th July, 2022. He has, hence, urged that in such an eventuality, other questions of law need not be answered, as the entire proceeding for assessment under Section 9C of the OET Act gets vitiated.

FACTS

3. The petitioner, a Government of India Undertaking under the Ministry of Defense having its registered office at Bengaluru with its branch offices spreading over different places in the countr