Sales Tax Officer, Ganjam & ANR Vs.
M/S. Uttareswari Rice Mills [1972] INSC 224 (18 September 1972)
KHANNA, HANS RAJ KHANNA, HANS RAJ REDDY, P.
JAGANMOHAN
CITATION: 1972 AIR 2617 1973 SCR (2) 310
ACT:
Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, s. 12(8)-Notice
for assessment of escaped turnover-If should indicate reasons for reopening
assessment.
HEADNOTE:
On receipt of certain information, and,, as a
result of information disclosed in documents seized from the respondent, the
appellant issued a notice under s. 12 (8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act. 1947, in
the Form prescribed under r. 23 made under the Act, for reassessing the
turnover of the respondent. The High Court, quashed the notice on the ground
that the appellant had not indicated any reason for issuing the notice.
Allowing the appeal to this
HELD: (1) Although the opening words used in
the section are "if for any reason" and not "if the sales tax
authority has reason to believe" the difference in phraseology does not
make any difference. A reason cannot exist in vacuum, and in the context, it
should be the sales-tax authority issuing the notice who should have reason to
believe that the turnover of a dealer has escaped assessment or has been under
assessed. The words used in the prescribed Form also are "whereas I have
reason to believe that your turnover has escaped assessment....... Any view
which would make the opening words of the section unworkable should be avoided.
[317 C-E] (2) The ingredients of s. 12 (8) of
the Orissa Sales-tax Act, 1947, are: (i) there must exist reason for the belief
that, (a) the turnover of, a dealer for any period to which the Act applies has
escaped assessment or has been under-assessed; or, (b) the tax has been
compounded when composition is not permissible under the Act and the rules made
there under; (ii) in cases mentioned in cl. (i) the sales;-tax authority may at
any time within 36 months from the expiry of the year to which the above
mentioned period relates call for a return under s. 11 (1) of the Act; (iii)
after taking the steps mentioned in cls. (i) and (ii) above, the sales tax
authority may proceed to assess the amount of the tax due from the dealer in
the manner laid down in s. 12 (5) of the Act; (iv) the sales tax authority may
also direct in cases where escapement or under-assessment or composition is due
to the dealer having concealed particulars of his turnover or having without
sufficient cause furnished incorrect particulars thereof that the dealer shall
pay penalty in addition to the tax assessed;
and (v) such penalty shall not exceed one and
a half times the amount of the tax so assessed. [316 F-H; 317 A-C] The
proceedings for assessment or re-assessment under the section start with the
issue of a notice and it is only after the service of the notice that the
assessee whose turnover is sought to be assessed or re-assessed becomes a party
to the proceedings. Therefore, it is not necessary to intimate to the assessee
the nature of the alleged escapement in the notice issued to him under the
section.
To hold that the, reasons which led to the
issue of the said notice should be incorporated in the notice and that the
failure to do so invalidated the notice would be tantamount to reading
something into the statute which, in fact, is not there. However, if the
sales-tax officer is in 311 possession of material which he proposes to use
against the dealer in proceedings for re-assessment they said officer must,
before using that material, bring it to the notice of the dealer and give him
an adequate opportunity to explain and answer the case on the basis of that
material. [319 B;
320 C; 321 F-H] B. Patnaik Mines (P) Ltd. v.
N K. Mohanty Sales Tax Officer, I.L.R. [1967] Cuttack 446, overruled.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengal v. Messrs
Mahaliram Ramjidas [1940] 8 I.T.R. 442, (P.C.) applied.
K. S. Rashid and Son v. Income Tax Officer,
[1964] 52 I.T.R. 355. (S.C.) and S. Narayanappa and Ors., v.Commissioner of
Income Tax, Bangalore, [1967] 63 I.T.R. 219, (S.C.) followed.
(3) The fact that it is mentioned in the
notice that penalty may also, be imposed would not make any difference to the
validity of the notice. The question of imposition of penalty will only arise
at the time of making.. an order for re-assessment. At that stage, the
sales-tax officer would go. into the question whether the escapement or underassessment
has been due to the fact that the dealer concealed particulars of his turnover
or without sufficient cause furnished incorrect particulars. In such an event
he would have to give an opportunity to the dealer to show cause why penalty,
in addition to the tax should not be imposed. [320 A; 321 A-C] (4) The
existence of the reason that the turnover of the dealer had, escaped assessment
or has been under-as is a sine qua non for the issue of the notice. In the
present case, the appellant had brought material on record to indicate that
there did exist such reasons. [322 B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals
Nos. 1190 and 1191 of 1969.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
order dated June 24, 1968 of the Orissa High Court at Cuttack in O.J.C.
Nos.. 464 and 463 of 1967.
T. A. Ramchandran, S. P. Nayar, B. D. Sharma
and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellants (in both the appeals).
Gobind Das and B. Parthasarathi, for the
respondents (in both the appeals).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KHANNA, J. Whether notice issued under section 12(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax
Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) should be
quashed on the ground that it does not mention the reasons for the issue of the
notice is the main question which arises for determination in these two
appeals, Nos. 1190 and 1191 of 1969, which have been file& by special leave
against the common judgment of the Orissa High Court allowing writ petitions
filed by the respondents against the appellants.
312 For sake of convenience we may give the
facts giving rise to appeal No. 1190 of 1969 as it is the common case of the
parties that the decision in that appeal would govern the other appeal also.
The respondent in appeal No. 1190 is a dealer registered under the Act. The
matter relates to the assessment for 1963-64. The date of the order of
assessment is not on file but it is stated that it was made sometime in the
later part of 1964. On March 30, 1967 the Sales Tax Officer, Intelligence Wing,
Vigilance, Berhampur made a search of the business premises of the respondent
and seized several account books. On the following, day further search was made
and some additional account books were taken into possession. Later on that day,
viz, March 31, 1967 the Sales Tax Officer issued the following notice under
section 12(8) of the Act to the respondent:
"Notice to a dealer under section 12(8)
of the Orissa Sales Tax Act [See rules 22, 23 and 28(2)] To M/s Utteswar Rice
Mills (Dealer) At/P.O. Berhampur, GA-1 2127-A (Address) ..........
..........
"Whereas I have reason to believe that
your turnover for the quarter ending 1963-64 on which Sales Tax was payable
under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 has escaped;
assessment/has been under assessed.
You are hereby required to submit within one
calendar month from the date of receipt of this notice a return in Form IV
(enclosed) showing the particulars of your turnover for the year ending
1963-64.
"You are also hereby required to attend
in person or by agent at my office at Berhampur on 11-5-67 at 1 1 A.M. and
thereto produce or cause to be produced the accounts and documents specified on
the reverse and also to show cause why in addition to the amount of tax that
may be assessed on you a penalty not exceeding one and a half time that amount
should not be imposed on you under sub-section (5) of section 12 of the Act.
In the event of your failure to comply with
all the terms of this notice I shall proceed to assess you under 313 section 12
of the Act to the best of my judgment without further reference to you.
Sd/Illegible Signature Sales Tax Officer
Intelligence Wing, Vigilance Berhampur" Place-Berhampur Date-31-3-67.
The notice was received by an employee of the
respondent.
Appearance was thereafter put in on behalf of
the respondent before the Sales Tax Officer and a copy of the old return which
had been earlier filed in accordance with section 11 of the Act was again filed
before the Sales Tax Officer.
According to the respondent, appearance was
put in on its behalf on several occasions with a view to know the reason for
the issue of the above notice, but the respondent was not informed of that
reason. It is further stated that the Sales Tax Officer recorded the statements
of a number of witnesses behind the back of the respondent with the intention
of making reassessment under section 12 of the Act. Request was made on behalf
of the respondent to the Sales Tax Officer for being furnished with co-pies of
those statements so that the respondent might be in a position to know the
reason for the issue of the notice. Copies of those statements were, however,
not supplied and the application filed by the respondent for obtaining copies
of the statements was rejected by the Sales Tax Officer. It was mentioned by
the Sales Tax Officer that the question of grant of copies of the statements
would be considered if the statements were used against the respondent. The
respondent filed a revision petition against the order rejecting that
application, but the revision petition too was dismissed.
The respondent thereafter filed petition
under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in the High Court on December
26, 1967.
The High Court accepted the writ petition on
the ground that the Sales Tax Officer had not indicated any reason for issuing
notice under section 12(8) of the Act. This fact,, in the opinion of the High
Court, was sufficient to warrant quashing of the notice. The High Court in this
context relied upon its earlier decision in the case of B. Patnaik Mines (P)
Ltd. v. N. K. Mohanty Sales Tax Officer(1). It was held in the earlier case
that the Sales Tax Officer had no jurisdiction under section 12(8) of the Act
to issue notice for making a fishing equiry (1) I.L.R. [1967] Cuttack 446.
314 without indicating therein the reason for
the alleged under assessment.
In appeal before us Mr. Ramachandran on
behalf of the appellants has referred to the provisions of section 12(8) of the
Act and has argued that it is not essential to give the reasons in the notice
issued under the above provision of law. The impugned notice, according to the
learned counsel, cannot be quashed for non-mention of the reasons.
The above stand has been controverter by Mr.
Gobind Das on behalf of the respondent and according to him, the failure of the
Sales Tax Officer to mention the reasons which led to the issue of the impugned
notice would vitiate the notice.
There is, in our opinion, considerable force
in the stand taken in this respect by the learned counsel for the appellants.
Section 12 of the Act deals with assessment of tax. Sub-sections (5) and (8) of
the above section read as under :
"(5) If upon information which has come
into his possession, the Commissioner is satisfied that any dealer has been
liable to pay tax under this Act in respect of any period and has nevertheless
without sufficient causes failed to apply for registration, the Commissioner
shall, after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard, assess,
to the best of his judgment, the amount of tax, if any, due from the dealer in
respect of such period and all subsequent periods and the Commissioner may
direct that the dealer shall pay, by way of penalty, in addition to the amount
so assessed, a sum not exceeding one and a half times that amount:
Provided that no penalty shall be levied for
the quarter during which the dealer first or again becomes liable to pay tax
under this Act.
(8) If for any reason the turnover of a
dealer for any period to which this Act applies has escaped assessment or has
been under-assessed or where the tax has been compounded when composition is
not permissible under this Act and the rules made there under, the Commissioner
may at any time within thirty six months from the expiry of the year to which
that period relates call for a return under sub-section (1) of section 11 and
may proceed to assess the amount of tax due from the dealer in the manner laid
down in subsection (5) of this section and may also direct, in cases where
escapement or under assessment or composition is due to the dealer having
concealed particulars of his turnover or having without sufficient cause
furnished incorrect particulars thereof, that the dealer shall pay, by way of
penalty, in addition 315 to the tax assessed under this sub-section, a sum not exceeding
one and a half times of the said tax so assessed." The Orissa Sales Tax
Rules, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the rules) have been framed by the
State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by section 29 of the Act.
According to sub-section ( 1) of that section, 'the State Government may
subject to the condition of previous publication make rules for carrying out
the purposes of the Act. Subsection (2) of that section mentions the subjects,
without prejudice to the generality of power given by sub-section ( 1 ),
regarding which rules may prescribe. Section 29-A requires that all rules made
under section 29, and notifications issued under section 3-B, sub-section (1)
of section 5 and section 6 shall, as soon as possible after they are made or
published, as the ,case may be, be laid before the Assembly for a total period
of fourteen days which may be comprised in one or more sessions. Rule 23 may be
reproduced below :
"23. Calling for return when turnover
has escaped assessments or has been under-assessed-(1) If for any reason the
turnover of sales or the turnover of purchases of a dealer has escaped
assessment or has been under-assessed or has not been assessed due to the tax
having been compounded when composition is not permissible under the Act and
those rules and it is proposed to assess it the Commissioner shall serve on the
dealer a notice in Form VI within one calendar month from the date of receipt
of such notice.
(2) Such notice may also require the dealer
to attend in person or by his agent at the office of the authority issuing the
notice on the date specified therein and to produce or cause to be produced the
accounts and documents specified in the notice." The relevant part of Form
VI referred to in rule 23 is in the following words FORM VI To
...................(dealer) ...................(Address) ...................
....................
3-L498 Sup CI/73 316 Whereas I have reason to
believe that your turnover of sales and/or purchases for the quarter/year
ending on which tax payable under the Orissa Sales Tax Act has escaped
assessment has been under-assessee has not been assessed due to the tax having
been compounded when composition is not permissible.
You are hereby required to submit within one
calendar month from the date of. receipt of this notice a return in Form IV
(enclosed) showing the particulars of your turnover for the quarter ending You
are also hereby required to attend in person or by agent at my office at ....
on .... at .... A.M./ P.M. and there to produce or cause to be produced the
accounts and documents specified on the reverse, and also show cause why in
addition to the amount of tax that may be assessed on you a penalty not
exceeding one and a half times that amount should not be imposed on you under
sub-section (5)/subsection (8) of section 12 of the Act.
In the event of your failure to comply with
all the terms of this notice I shall proceed to assess you under section 12 of
the Act to the best of my judgment without further reference to you.
Place........... Signature Date............
Designation Section 12(8) of the Act reproduced above may be analysed its under
:
(i) There must exist reason for the belief
that (a) the turnover of a dealer for any period to which the Act applies has
escaped assessment or has been under-assessed; or (b) the tax has been
compounded when composition is not permissible under the Act and the rules made
thereunder.
(ii) In cases mentioned in clause (i) the
sales tax authority may at any time within 36 months from the expiry of the
year to which the above mentioned period relates call for a return under
section 1 1 ( 1 ) of the Act.
(iii) After taking the steps mentioned in
clauses (i) and (ii) above, the sales tax authority may proceed to assess the
amount of the tax due from 317 the dealer in the manner laid down in section
12(5) of the Act..
(iv) The sales tax authority may also direct
in cases where escapement or under-assessment or composition is due to the
dealer having concealed particulars of his turnover or having without
sufficient cause furnished incorrect particulars thereof that the dealer shall
pay penalty in addition to the tax assessed.
(v) Such penalty shall not exceed one and a
half times the amount of the tax so assessed.
Although the opening words used in section
12(8) are "if for any reason" and not "if the sales tax
authority has reason to believe", the difference in phraseology, in our
opinion, should not make much material difference. A reason cannot exist in
vacuum. Somebody must form the belief that reason exists and looking to the
context in which the words are used, we are of the view that it should be the
sales tax authority issuing the notice who should have reason to believe that
the turnover of a dealer has escaped assessment or has been under-assessed. The
approach in this matter has to be practical and not pedantic. Any view which
would make the opening words of section 12(8) unworkable has to be avoided. It
may be noted in this context that in Form VI appended to the rules, which has
been prepared in pursuance of rule 23, the words used are "whereas I have
reason to believe that your turnover...... has escaped assessment In the case
of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengal v. Messrs Mahaltram Ramjidas(1) the
Judicial Committee dealt with the provisions of section 34 of the Indian Income
Tax Act, 1922 as it then existed. The section read as under:
"34, If for any reason income, profits
or gains chargeable to income-tax has escaped assessment in any year or has
been assessed at too low a rate, the Income-tax Officer may, at any time within
one year of the end of that year, serve on the person liable to pay tax on such
income, profits, or gains, or in the case of a company, on the principal
officer thereof, a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may
be included in a notice under sub-section (2) of section 22 and may proceed to
assess or reassess such income, profits or gains, and the provisions of this
Act shall so far as may be, apply accordingly as if the notice were a notice
issued under that sub-section (1) (1940) 8 I.T.R. 442.
318 Provided that the tax shall be charged at
the rate at which it would have been charged had the income, profits or gains
not escaped assessment or full assessment, as the case may be." The
opening words of section 34 of the Indian Income Tax Act, as it then existed
were similar to those of section 12(8) of the Act. The Judicial Committee while
dealing with the language of section 34 observed :
"Section 34 is unhappily and even
ungrammatically phrased. It is expressed impersonally, and it fails to state by
whom and by what procedure it is to be established that income, profits or
gains have escaped assessment or have been assessed at too low a rate. There is
fortunately no dispute that the person who must make that decision is the
Income-tax Officer, for, apart from the assessee, no one else is in a position
to say whether income has been assessed or at what rate it has been assessed.
The omission to prescribe expressly what the nature of the decision should be and
by what procedure it must be reached is all the more surprising because in
other sections of the Act the legislature has been careful to define what is
necessary in these respects. This circumstance was founded on by the learned
Counsel for the respondents, who pointed out that where some fact had to be
established merely prima facie to the satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer in
the bona fide exercise of his discretion, this was expressed by such
phraseology as "When it appears to be Income tax Officer," or
"if the Income-tax Officer has reason to believe". On the other hand,
when the statute requires that the Income-tax Officer shall make a decision,
which is final so far as he is concerned, upon a matter of fact, the usual
expression is "if he is satisfied".
It was further observed "The section,
although, it is part of a taxing Act, imposes no charge on the subject, and
deals merely with the machinery of assessment.
In interpreting provisions of this kind the
rule is that that construction should be preferred which makes the machinery
workable, ut res valeat potius quam pereat." In view of the criticism
levelled against the wording of section 34 of the Indian Income Tax Act, the
above section was amended by Amendment Act of 1939 Despite the amendment made
in section 34 of the Indian Income Tax Act, the Orissa Legislature, 319 it
would appear, has used phraseology in section 12(8) of the Act similar to that
of section 34 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 as it existed before the said
amendment.
The above decision of the Judicial Committee
is Also an authority for the proposition that it is not necessary to intimate
to the assessee the nature of the alleged escapement in the notice which is
issued to him under section 34 (as it then existed) of the Indian Income Tax
Act, 1922. The notice which was issued in that case did not give any
particulars and was in the following words :
"Whereas I have reason to believe that
your income from business and other sources which should have been assessed in
the financial year ending the 31st March, 1933, has wholly escaped assessment
and I therefore propose to assess the said income that has escaped assessment.
I hereby require you to deliver to me, not later than the 9th March, 1934, or
within 30 days of the receipt of this notice, it return in the attached form of
your income from all sources which was assessable in the said year ending the
31st March, 1933." It was observed while dealing with the validity of the
above notice " Accordingly their Lordships are of opinion that the
Income-tax Officer is not required by the section to convene the assessee or to
intimate to him the nature of the alleged escapement, or to give him an
opportunity of being heard, before he decides to operate the powers conferred
by the section. In the opinion of their Lordships the view which the learned
Judges of the High Court have taken of the section is too narrow, and the
notice sent to the respondents on 8th February, 1934, is in form a competent
preliminary to a new assessment." In the case of K. S. Rashid and Son and
Others v. Income Tax Officer(1) this Court expressed the view that the assessee
was not entitled to a copy of the reasons which were recorded by the income tax
officer when he issued the notice under section 34 of the Indian Income Tax
Act, 1922. In the later case of S. Narayanappa and Others v.Commissioner of
Income Tax Bangalore (2 ) an argument was advanced that the income tax officer
should have indicated to the assessee the reasons which (1) [1964] 52 I.T.R.
355. (2) [1967] 63 I.T.R. 219 320 led him to initiate the proceedings under
section 34 of the Act. This contention was repelled in the following words :
"It was also contended for the appellant
that the Income-tax Officer should have communicated to him the reasons which
led him to initiate the proceedings under section 34 of the Act. It was stated
that a request to this effect was made by the appellant to the Income-tax
Officer, but the Income-tax Officer declined to disease the reasons. In our
opinion, the argument of the appellant on this point is misconceived. The
proceedings for assessment or reassessment under section 34(1) (a) of the
Income-tax Act start with the issue of a notice and it is only after the
service of the notice that the assessee, whose income is sought to be assessed
or reassessed, becomes a party to those proceedings. The earlier stage of the
proceedings for recording the reasons of the Income-tax Officer and for
obtaining the sanction of the Commissioner are administration in character and
are not quasijudicial. The scheme of section 34 of the Act is that, if the
conditions of the main section are satisfied, a notice has to be issued to the
assessee containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in a
notice under subsection (2) of section 22. But before issuing the notice, the
proviso required that the officer should record his reasons for initiating
action under section 34 and obtain the sanction, of the Commissioner who must
be satisfied that the action under section 34 was justified. There is no
requirement in any of the provisions of the Act or any section laying down as a
condition for the initiation of the proceedings that the reasons which induced
the Commissi oner to accord sanction to proceed under section 34 must also be
communicated to the assessee." As the provisions of section 12(8) of the
Act and section 34 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 are substantially
similar, the dicta laid down in cases under section 34 of the Indian Income-Tax
'Act has, in our opinion, a direct bearing.
Mr. Govind Das has tried to distinguish the
cases under section 34 of the Indian Income Tax Act on the ground that, unlike
section 12(8) of the Act which also provides for the imposition of penalty,
there was no mention of penalty in section 34 of the Indian Income Tax Act.
This circumstances in our opinion, makes no substantial difference and cannot
prevent the applicability of the dicta laid down in cases under section 34 of
the Indian 321 Income Tax Act, 1922 to cases under section 12(8) of the Act The
question of imposition of penalty can only arise at the time of making an order
for reassessment. Mr. Ramachandran an behalf of the appellants has frankly
stated that it would be only at that stage that the sales tax officer would go
into the question as to whether the escapement or under-assessment or
composition has been due to the fact that the dealer concealed particulars of
his turnover or without sufficient cause furnished incorrect particulars
thereof. The sales tax officer in such an event, it is not disputed, would have
to give opportunity to the dealer to show, cause why penalty in addition to the
tax should not be imposed upon him.
Reference has also been made by Mr. Gobind
Das to the fact that notice issued to the respondent on March 31, 1967 related
not merely to the escaped assessment or under-assessment, it also called upon
the respondent to show cause why penalty should not be imposed upon him. It is
urged that such a combined notice is invalid even though it may be in accordance
with Form VI prescribed by the rules. Calling upon the respondent to show because
why penalty should not be imposed upon him, according to the learned counsel,
is premature at this stage. In this respect we find that no such ground was
taken by the respondent in the writ petition before the High Court. As such, it
is not necessary for the purpose of this case to express an, opinion on the,
point as to whether a notice under section 12(8) should be struck down, on the
aforesaid ground. There is nothing in the language of section 12(8) of the Act which
either expressly or by necessary implication postulates the recording of
reasons in the notice which is issued to the dealer under the above provision
of law. To hold that reasons which led to the issue of the said notice should
be incorporated in the notice and that failure to do so would invalidate the
notice, would be tantamount to reading something in the statute which, in fact,
is not there. We are consequently unable to accede to the contention that the
notice under the above provision, of law should be quashed if the reasons which
led to the issue of the notice are not mentioned in the notice. At the game
time, we would like to make it clear that if the sales tax officer is in
possession of material which he proposes to use against the dealer in
proceedings for reassessment, the said officer must before using that material
bring it to the notice of the dealer and give him adequate opportunity to
explain and answer the case on the basis of that material.
Mr. Gobind Das has also argued that the
existence of a reason that the turnover of a dealer has escaped assessment or
has been 322 under-assessed in cases, not dealing with composition is a
condition precedent to the issue of a notice under section 12(8) of the Act. It
is urged that such reason is not shown to have existed in the present case.
Although we agree with the learned counsel that the existence of the reason
that the turnover of a dealer has escaped assessment or has been under-assessed
is a sine qua non for the issue of the notice, we are, unable to accept the
contention that the said reason has been shown to be nonexistent in the pretend
case. Although the High Court did not go into this aspect of the matter, we
find that the appellant has brought material on the record to indicate that
there did exist such reasons. Affidavit of Shri Prakash Chandra Mohanty, Sales
Tax Officer, and Intelligence Circle was filed in opposition to the petition,
Shri Mohanty is the successor of Shri Patnaik who had issued the notice under
section 12(8) of the Act to the respondent. According to the affidavit of Shri
Mohanty, the material on record indicates that Shri Patnaik issued the impugned
notice after he had obtained information about certain clandestine dealings of
the respondent. It was further stated that the seized documents disclosed prima
facie material to hold that the respondent had failed to disclose his entire
turnover. It was also mentioned that the details of the material which led to
the initiation of proceedings under section 12(8) of the Act had been recorded
in the relevant case file. The said file, it would appear from the affidavit of
Shri Mohanty, was kept 'available for reference by the High Court at the time
of hearing. No reference, it would seem, was however made to that file because
the High Court did not feet the necessity of doing so.
In our opinion the view taken by the High
Court in the judgment under appeal as well as in the earlier case of B. Patnaik
Mines (P) Ltd. v. N. K. Mohanty Sales Tax Officer (supra) was not correct. We
accordingly accept the two appeals, set aside the judgment of the High Court
and dismiss the writ petitions. Looking to all the circumstances, we leave the
parties to bear their own costs of this Court as well as in the High Court.
V.P.S. Appeals allowed.
Back
