M/S Pal Automobiles vs The Sales Tax Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 12799 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                          STREV Nos.40 and 41 of 2007

              M/s Pal Automobiles                 ....            Petitioner
                                            Mr. B. Panda, Senior Advocate
                                       -versus-
              The Sales Tax Officer,              ....      Opposite Parties
              Bhubaneswar I Circle and others
                                                 Mr. Sunil Mishra, A.S.C.
                        CORAM:
                        THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                        JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA

                                        ORDER

13.12.2021 Order No.

08. 1. In both these revision petitions, which pertain to the assessment year (AY) 1991-92 and 1993-94 respectively, this Court by its order dated 17th April 2007 framed the following question of law:

"Whether the Sales Tax Tribunal is correct in placing reliance on the materials obtained from a third party without affording the Petitioner an opportunity of verification and/or confrontation?"

2. Mr. Panda, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner-Assessee places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India dated 2nd September 2015 in Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE, Kolkata-II, 2015 (324) ELT 641 (SC) wherein inter alia it was held in paragraph-8 as under:

"...if the testimony of these two witnesses is discredited, there was no material with the Department on the basis of which it could justify its action, as the

// 2 //

statement of the aforesaid two witnesses was the only basis of issuing the show cause notice."

3. In the present case, admittedly, the materials relied upon was not confronted to the Petitioner-Assessee while finalizing the order of assessment.

4. Had these petitions been of a recent year, the Court may have been inclined to remand the matter to Tribunal for a fresh adjudication. However, since the issue is more than twenty seven years old, the Court does not consider it appropriate to adopt that method of disposal. The absence of the Petitioner being given an opportunity to confront the materials against them renders the impugned assessment orders unsustainable in law. Consequently, the impugned orders of the Tribunal as well as the corresponding order in the first appeal and the order of the assessment vis-à-vis the present Petitioner for the period 1991-92 and 1993-94 are hereby set aside. The question framed in answered accordingly.

5. The revision petitions are disposed of accordingly.

6. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge S.K. Guin