State Of Odisha vs M/S. Oriclean Pvt. Ltd.
2021 Latest Caselaw 12798 Ori

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                         STREV Nos.9 and 10 of 2003

            State of Odisha, represented         ....            Petitioner
            through the Commissioner of
            Commercial Taxes, Cuttack

                           Mr. Sunil Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel
                                       -versus-
            M/s. Oriclean Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack    ....       Opposite Parties



                     CORAM:
                     THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                     JUSTICE A. K. MOHAPATRA
                                     ORDER

13.12.2021 Order No.

16. 1. In STREV No.9 of 2003, the following question of law was framed by this Court for consideration by the order dated 5th September, 2008:

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, M/s Oriclean Pvt. Limited was entitled for Sales Tax exemption under Entry 30-FFF of List-A of the OST Rate Chart admittedly when M/s Oriclean Pvt. Limited was a seized and transferred unit and the IPR, 1989 and the corresponding Finance Department Notification issued u/s 6 of the OST Act make no provision for grant of sales tax exemption to a seized and transferred unit?"

2. In STREV No.10 of 2003, the following questions of law were framed by this Court for consideration by the order dated 16th September, 2008:

"1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, M/s Oriclean Pvt. Limited was entitled for Sales Tax exemption under Entry 30-FFF of List-A of the OST Rate Chart admittedly when M/s Oriclean Pvt. Limited was a seized and transferred unit and the IPR, 1989 and the corresponding Finance Department Notification issued u/s 6 of the OST Act make no provision for grant of sales tax exemption to a seized and transferred unit?

2. Whether the product of a small scale industrial unit is entitled to the benefit of exemption of sales tax particularly when the trade mark and brand name of a big business house is used and total sales were made to that business house?"

3. It is seen from the impugned order of the Tribunal that the question whether the Respondent Unit should be considered to be exempt from payment of sales tax hinged upon the certificate issued by the Government by a letter dated 20th March, 2002 directing the District Industries Centre (DIC) to treat Oriclean "as a separate/independent unit."

4. This Court has, following the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Vadilal Chemicals Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [2005] 5 RC 295, held in its judgment dated 20th April, 2021 passed in STREV No.28 of 2006 (M/s. Bajrangballi Wire Products Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, represented by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Odisha, Cuttack) that a certificate issued by the Government or the DIC in regard to the availability of sales tax exemption is binding on the sales tax authorities. In other words, it has been held that

the sales tax authorities cannot go behind such certificates to independently decide the question of exigibility to sales tax.

5. In that view of the matter, the questions framed by this Court are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department.

6. The present revision petitions are accordingly disposed of upholding the order of the Tribunal.

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

( A. K. Mohapatra ) Judge M.. Panda