Deepak Medical Store Vs. State of Orissa - Court Judgment |
| Sales Tax |
| Orissa High Court |
| Jul-03-1987 |
| Special Jurisdiction Case No. 12 of 1981 |
| H.L. Agrawal, C.J. and ;S.C. Mohapatra, J. |
| [1988]68STC293(Orissa) |
| Deepak Medical Store |
| State of Orissa |
| A.K. Roy, Adv. |
| Additional Government Adv. (CT) |
| State of Orissa v. Bhagabati Timber
|
.....agreement between the orissa state financial corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the contract act, 1872 read with the provisions in the act, 1951 and its rules. on the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. thus, by virtue of the provision in section 56 read with section 64 (2) of the act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by orissa state financial corporation. by doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the orissa state financial corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. in other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the orissa state financial corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive,..........short 'the act'), the member, sales tax tribunal, orissa, has referred the following questions of law for opinion of this court:(i) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the member, sales tax tribunal, is legally right to hold that the dealer is liable to pay tax with effect from 5th april, 1975, that is, the date of its application for registration ?(ii) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the member, sales tax tribunal, is legally correct to hold that the order annulling the assessment for the period 30th june, 1975 by the assistant commissioner of sales tax is contrary to law ?2. the dealer had made a voluntary application for registration under section 9-a of the act on 5th april, 1975 and received the registration certificate on 11th july, 1975. in these circumstances, the sales tax officer held the petitioner liable to pay sales tax for the very first quarter of 1975-76, i.e., 1st april, 1975 to 30th june, 1975, and completed the assessment accordingly taking the g.t.o. at rs. 25,768.46. the dealer disputed the order of assessment on the ground that though it had made the application under section 9-a of the act, the.....
H.L. Agrawal, C.J. and S.C. Mohapatra, J.
1. In this reference under Section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'), the Member, Sales Tax Tribunal, Orissa, has referred the following questions of law for opinion of this Court:
(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Member, Sales Tax Tribunal, is legally right to hold that the dealer is liable to pay tax with effect from 5th April, 1975, that is, the date of its application for registration ?
(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Member, Sales Tax Tribunal, is legally correct to hold that the order annulling the assessment for the period 30th June, 1975 by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax is contrary to law ?
2. The dealer had made a voluntary application for registration under Section 9-A of the Act on 5th April, 1975 and received the registration certificate on 11th July, 1975. In these circumstances, the Sales Tax Officer held the petitioner liable to pay sales tax for the very first quarter of 1975-76, i.e., 1st April, 1975 to 30th June, 1975, and completed the assessment accordingly taking the G.T.O. at Rs. 25,768.46. The dealer disputed the order of assessment on the ground that though it had made the application under Section 9-A of the Act, the certificate of registration was received by it after the end of the quarter in question, i.e., on 11th July, 1975, and, therefore, it did not incur any liability for payment of sales tax for the first quarter. It is in this way that the matter has been referred to this Court as all the authorities have rejected the stand of the dealer.
3. We, however, need not detain ourselves as a similar question has already been answered by this Court in State of Orissa v. Bhagabati Timber [1982] 50 STC 134, where it has been held that the liability in such a case would be from the date when the certificate of registration is received by the dealer. Following the view taken by this Court in the aforesaid case, the answer to the questions must be given in favour of the dealer and against the department, namely, that the liability would commence only from the date of receipt of the registration certificate by the dealer.
We, however, make no order as to costs.