State of Orissa v. M/s. Bhagwati Steel Industries
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The revision petition is disposed of in the above terms
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Petitioner-Department points out that the order dated 3rd October 1994 of the Tribunal notes in paragraph-4 as under: 4. In this connection it is pertinent to mention that in the meanwhile the appeal filed by…
- Para 66. Accordingly, the questions framed by this Court by the order dated 29th June 1999 are answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the Assessee and against the Department.
- Para 77. The revision petition is disposed of in the above terms.
Judgment
Mr. Sunil Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel -versus- M/s. Bhagwati Steel Industries …. Opposite Party Mr. M. Agarwalla, Advocate along with Mr. A. Kedia, Advocate CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN ORDER 13.04.2022
After the Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal, Cuttack (Tribunal) by an order dated 18th October 1995 declined to refer the questions as urged by the Department for consideration by this Court under Section 24 (1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, for the year 1984- 85, the present petition has been filed by the Department.
On 29th June 1999, the Court famed the following questions of law for consideration: (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Sales Tax Tribunal is justified to treat Iron Scrap and rods and flats as the same commercial commodity for the purpose of taxation? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Sales Tax Tribunal is justified to exonerate the charges of contravention under Section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947? the Assessee from
Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Petitioner-Department points out that the order dated 3rd October 1994 of the Tribunal notes in paragraph-4 as under:
4. In this connection it is pertinent to mention that in the meanwhile the appeal filed by the dealer had already been disposed of by the Full Bench in their second appeal No.909 of 1987-88 dated 16.10.1992. The full bench of the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the dealer in full. I also agree with the said order passed by the full bench of the Tribunal and accordingly I am inclined to dismiss the appeal filed by the State.
Mr. Mishra very frankly states that he does not have a copy of the aforementioned order dated 16th October 1992 and he is also unable to state whether the said order has been challenged.
In the absence of any challenge to the above order, no fault can be found with the Tribunal’s order dated 3rd October 1994 declining to answer the question in favour of the Department.
Accordingly, the questions framed by this Court by the order dated 29th June 1999 are answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the Assessee and against the Department.
Operative part
The revision petition is disposed of in the above terms.
Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules. Chief Justice (Dr. S. Muralidhar) Judge (M.S. Raman) S.K. Guin
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The revision petition is disposed of in the above terms
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 — s. 24(1); Aaii of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.