Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha vs M/S. Hotel Sibaram on 10 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
STREV No.10 of 2021
State of Odisha ...... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Pradhan, ASC
-versus-
M/s. Hotel Sibaram ...... Opposite Party
CORAM:
JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
10.02.2023
Order No.
03. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. S.K. Pradhan, learned Additional Standing
Counsel, Sales Tax and G.S.T.
3. By means of this revision petition, filed under Section
80 of the Odisha Value Added Tax Act, 2004, the Petitioner
has challenged the order dated 18.01.2021 passed in the
Second Appeal No.231(V) of 2018 by the Odisha Sales Tax
Tribunal, Cuttack, Annexure-3 to the writ petition.
4. According to Mr. Pradhan, learned Addl. Standing
Counsel, the assessing authority passed the order of
assessment on 11.01.2018 [See Annexure-1 to the writ
petition]. That assessment order was challenged by the
assessee, M/s Hotel Sibram. The said appeal was dismissed
affirming the assessment order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner of Sales Tax, Ganjam-II Circle, Berhampur.
5. Being aggrieved the assessee filed the above noted
Second Appeal before Odisha Sales Tax Tribunal, Cuttack. By
the order dated 18.01.2021, Odisha Sales Tax Tribunal set
aside the order passed by the First Appellate Authority. By the
order dated 18.01.2021 the order of assessment was also set
aside. It has been further held that the returned figure of the
assessee [the Appellant in the Second Appeal] is proper and
maintainable. To challenge the said final order, the several
questions of law have been proposed below the Paragraph-20
of the revision petition.
6. Admit this petition to be heard on merit on the
following questions of law:
(i) Whether the Tribunal has committed error by not
reading rasogolla within the product name sweetmeat and by
not holding that tax @ 14.5% is leviable?
(ii) Whether the factual finding in respect of cash
position on the date of inspection is maintainable in as much
as that finding stands in contrast to the records, particularly to
the report of inspection?
(iii) Whether the impugned order of the Tribunal is in
contrast to Section 61(2) of the OVAT Act, 2004 and the ratio
laid down in the judgment of the Apex Court in
Commissioner of Sales Tax vrs. Mohan Brickfield: (2006) 12
SCC 203?
7. Issue notice.
8. Notice is made returnable on 24th March, 2023.
9. Steps for service of notice on the sole Opposite Party
shall be taken within 14th February, 2023 by registered post
with A.D.
(S. Talapatra)
Judge
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
I.A. No.28 of 2021
Order No.
04. 1. This is an application made by the revenue [the
revision petitioner] for granting stay of the operation of the
order dated 18.01.2021 passed by the Odisha Sales Tax
Tribunal in Second Appeal No.231(V) of 2018, as challenged
in the connected revision petition.
2. We have admitted the said revision petition. Hence,
we are inclined to issue notice as to why the interim relief as
prayed in this application, as noted above, shall not be granted
to the applicant or why such other order or orders should not
be passed in the circumstances of the case.
3. Notice is made returnable on 24th March, 2023.
4. Steps for service of notice on the sole Opposite Party
be taken within 14th February, 2023 by registered post with
A.D.
5. In the meanwhile, the operation of the impugned
order dated 18.01.2021, Annexure-3 to the revision petition,
shall remain suspended. Simultaneously, the revenue, the
applicant-revision petitioner, is restrained from taking any
coercive action against the Opposite Party.
6. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per
rules.
(S. Talapatra)
Judge
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
Murmu
