High CourtsDivision Bench(2021) 11 OHC CK 0149

M/s. Subhadra Steel vs Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal, Cuttack

Orissa High Court · Decided on 23 November 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ · A.K. Mohapatra, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 34874 Of 2021

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 503 words
1.

The short term in the present petition is that the Petitioner should have granted the indulgence of having its 1st appeal against the assessment order passed under Section 42 of the Odisha Value Added Tax Act (OVAT) restored to the file of the 1st Appellate Authority by condoning the delay in filing such appeal.

2.

The appeal was dismissed summarily by the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax, Puri (Opposite Party No.3) on 31st December, 2018 on the ground that the explanation for the delay was not satisfactory. The explanation offered by the counsel for the Petitioner is that the counsel to whom the papers had been entrusted had unfortunately expired on 23rd February, 2018 as a result of a terminal illness following which the Petitioner himself was indisposed for a sufficiently long period. This explanation, however, did not convince the Appellate Authority. This was because the counsel had died on 23rd February, 2018 whereas the appeal was filed on 6th December, 2018.

3.

The order of the 1st Appellate Authority has been confirmed by the 2nd Appellate Authority i.e. the Odisha Sales Tax Tribunal, Cuttack (the Tribunal) by the impugned order dated 8th July, 2021 dismissing the Petitioner's S.A. No.232(V) of 2019.

4.

Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that although a better explanation could have been offered, apart from medical certificates produced by the Petitioner to explain his illness, the Petitioner is prepared to abide by any term that the Court might fix to enable him to avail of the remedy of appeal.

5.

Mr. Padhy, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Revenue Department points out that the appeal was in fact inordinately delayed and a convincing explanation was not offered by the dealer for such delay. Nevertheless, he does not dispute the fact that the net result of the impugned orders would mean that against the assessment order the Petitioner would have no remedy whatsoever.

6.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that the interests of justice would be subserved if the Petitioner is directed to pay a cost of Rs.30,000/- to the Puri District Bar Association on or before 20th December, 2021 and furnish before the 1st Appellate Authority the proof of payment of such cost. It is accordingly ordered. It is further ordered that subject to compliance with the above direction, the delay in filing the appeal before the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax, Puri (Opposite Party No.3) shall stand condoned. Consequently, the orders dated 31st December, 2018 of the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax, Puri as well as the order dated 8th July, 2021 of the Tribunal are hereby set aside. The Petitioner's appeal No. 106111811000028 shall stand restored to the file of the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax, Puri (Opposite Party No.3) and will be listed there for directions on 3rd January, 2022.

7.

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

8.

Issue an urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.

..........................