M/S. S. Mohanlal (P) Ltd vs State Of Orissa
2021 Latest Caselaw 3944 Ori

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                   STREV No.95 of 2010


            M/s. S. Mohanlal (P) Ltd.                     ....        Petitioner
                                                     Miss Kajal Sahoo, Advocate
                                          -versus-
            State of Orissa                               ....       Opposite Party
                                                               Mr. D. Beura, ASC

                        CORAM:
                        THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                        JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

                                       ORDER

22.03.2021 Order No.

05. 1. This is a revision petition directed against an order dated 26th August, 2009 of the Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal, Cuttack in S.A.No.No.539 of 2008-09. By the said impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed the Petitioner-assessee's appeal against an order dated 6th June, 2008 passed by the Assistant Commissioner Sales Tax (ACST), Cuttack I Range, Cuttack confirming the assessment order dated 15th February, 2007 passed by the Sales Tax Officer (STO) for the period of assessment 2003-2004.

2. Against the returned sales turnover, the assessment order enhanced it by more than 25% and determined the tax payable as Rs.11,15,291/- inclusive of surcharge.

3. The assessment order reveals that despite the dealer undertaking to produce evidence of sales and purchases, with the ledger accounts of the parties and also the transactions concerning

certain money missing within seven days from the verification by the STO, he failed to do the same. The books of account maintained by the dealer was therefore rejected as false and the assessment was completed on the best judgment basis.

4. Even before the First Appellate Authority, the situation was no different. The First Appellate Authority noted that "no systematic books of accounts was produced in the forum."

5. Again before the Tribunal, the finding was that there was no factual evidence in support of the claim of the dealer.

6. There being findings against the Petitioner both by the First and Second Appellate Authority, concurring with the order of assessment of the STO, this Court is of the view that no case is made out for interference in the revision.

7. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

( B.P. Routray) Judge

C.R. Biswal/ B.K. Barik