Dismissed

State v. M/S.Chief Constructi

Orissa HC4 Jul 2022STREV/79/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa dismissed a revision petition filed by the State of Odisha against an order where the Sales Tax Tribunal favored the Assessee. The Court held the Tribunal was right to declare that goods purchased outside the state used for Indiravati Dam projects constituted utilization for generation of electricity, thus negating penalty liability.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition filed against the Tribunal's order favoring the Assessee was dismissed.

State Vs M/S.Chief Constructi — Orissa HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

STREV No. 79 of 2011

¶3

State of Odisha, represented by the …. Petitioner Commissioner of Sales Tax

¶4

Mr. Sunil Mishra, Addl. Standing Counsel

¶5

-versus-

¶6

… M/s. Chief Construction Engineer Opposite Party (Mech)

¶7

None

¶8

CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

Order No.

ORDER 04.07.2022

The State has filed this revision petition against an order dated 9^th June, 2011 passed by the Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal, Cuttack (Tribunal) dismissing the State’s appeal being S.A. No.99(C) of 2001-02.

¶13

The question sought to be urged for consideration by this Court in the present revision petition is “whether the Tribunal was justified in agreeing with the Assessee that the Sales Tax Officer was in error in holding that the goods purchased from outside the State of Odisha on the strength the declaration forms ‘C’ were not utilized for the purpose for which the goods so purchased”.

¶14

It is seen from the facts of the case that the purchase of the goods was for the purpose of generation of electricity. Prior to imposing the penalty, the STO apparently issued show cause notice to which the Assessee filed a reply. The reply was not

¶15

Page 1 of 2

¶16

accepted by the STO on the ground that it was not satisfactory. The fact of the matter is that in reply the Assessee pointed out the goods purchased on the strength of ‘C’ form were utilized “by the divisions” under the Project for gate work, Indiravati Dam, Muran Dam, Construction of Tunnel Dyke Works Colony Road and for running of transport and inspection vehicles.” All of the above works are only for generation of electricity at Indiravati Dam and therefore, it cannot be said that the goods purchased were not used for generation of electricity. There is no justification therefore, the STO holding that the dealer had contravened Section 10(d) of the CST Act and imposing a penalty. The Tribunal has rightly interfered with the impugned orders of the STO and the ACST and to decide the issue in favour of the Assessee. The Court is therefore not inclined to frame the question as urged by the State.

¶17

The revision petition is dismissed.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge

¶18

S.K. Jena/Secy.

¶19

Page 2 of 2

State v. M/S.Chief Constructi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State v. M/S.Chief Constructi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Praveen Kumar Vs State of Odisha

Sarat Chandra Mallick Vs the Chairman, Cbdt, New Delhi

Suidihi Distillery (P) Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Rourkela

Jeypore Evangelical Vs State and Ors.

State Vs M/S.D.R.Pattnaik

Susanta K.Parida Vs State and Anr.