Disposed

Hotel Nandan v. State

Orissa HC20 Feb 2019STREV/41/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revenue Revision Petition where the High Court held that the Sales Tax Tribunal committed an error by accepting an incorrect daily turnover figure. The Court ruled that the correct average turnover per day should be Rs. 1200/- based on subsequent years, answered the framed questions in the applicant's favour and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

The revenue revision petition was disposed of following a correction by the Court to the daily average turnover figure. Connected miscellaneous cases and IA were disposed accordingly.

Hotel Nandan Vs State — Orissa HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

STREV Nos. 41 of 2005

¶2

20.02.2019

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Sr. Standing Counsel for the opposite party-Revenue.

¶4

By way of this revision, the petitioner-assessee has challenged the order dated 11.10.2004 of the learned Odisha Sales Tax Tribunal, Cuttack passed in S.A. Nos.447 of 2000-01. 3. This Court, while admitting this revision petition on 26.10.2009, has framed the following substantial questions of law:

¶5

(I) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Sales Tax Tribunal is correct by not considering the contention made by the petitioner relating to daily average sale ?

¶6

(2) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the conclusion as drawn by the learned Sales Tax Tribunal while confirming the order of Assistant Commissioner without considering the facts that the same officer has determined Rs.1200/- & Rs.2200/- towards sale per day for the subsequent years, i.e. 1998-99 & 2000-01 being perverse is correct in law?

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us to the order of the learned Tribunal and submitted that while considering the matter, the learned Tribunal has seriously committed an error in not considering the contentions in view of the fact that for subsequent years per day transaction for the year 1998-99 was taken as Rs.1200/- and Rs.2200/-. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also contended that the authority itself has accepted Rs.1200/- per day and for the subsequent year 2000-01 it has taken Rs.2200/-, then if the average is

¶8

-2-

¶9

taken, it will come to Rs.1700/- and then deduction of 20% from the turnover taking into consideration the petitionerassessee is an unregistered dealer. In that view of the matter, if 1998-99, if the turnover is taken Rs.1200/- it cannot exceed for the previous year 1997-98.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials available on record, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal has seriously committed an error in accepting Rs.3000/- per day for the year 1997-98. The average turnover per day should be Rs.1200/- on the basis of 1998-99. Accordingly, the issue is answered in favour of the petitioner-assessee.

¶11

The STREV stands disposed of. All connected Misc. Cases/I.As. are disposed of accordingly.

¶12

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶13

.…….......……………… ( K.S. Jhaveri ) Chief Justice

¶14

…………………..……… ( K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶15

SKJ

Hotel Nandan v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hotel Nandan v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Ku. Mishra Vs State and Ors.

Panda Infraprojects India Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Odisha

Sushanta Ku.Biswal Vs State and Anr.

Umesh Ch.Behera Vs Dy.Commnr,Income Tax

Vijayalaxmi Cashew Vs State

State Vs M/S.Jagannath Rice