Puri Hotel vs Commercial Tax Officer and Another

S.C. Mohapatra, J.—Dealer is the petitioner in these three applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the notice u/s 12(5) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947.

Petitioner claims to be carrying on business of a residential hotel and claims that it is not liable to be assessed to tax under the Act. Counter-affidavit has been filed assailing the legal submissions of the petitioner.

Whether the petitioner would be liable tinder the Act would depend upon the nature of business carried on by it which would have to be found on facts and circumstances to be determined for which notice u/s 12(5) of the Act has been issued. Legal question having been examined in the decision of this Court reported in [1988] 70 STC 153 (Piplani Sweets v. Sales Tax Officer), the Sales Tax Officer is now to enquire into the facts after giving opportunity to the petitioner to file his return, submit objection and explain the materials collected.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no scope to interfere with the notice given u/s 12(5) of the Act, The writ applications are dismissed. No costs. Proceedings shall continue after giving notice to the petitioner.

P.C. Misra, J.

I agree.