Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 200 (ORI)

GAYATRI TRADERS v. STATE OF ORISSA

2013-07-11

C.NAGAPPAN, I.MAHANTY

body2013
ORDER 1. Heard Mr. J. Sahoo, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kar, learned Standing Counsel for the Commercial Taxes. The present revision has been preferred by M/s. Gayatri Traders challenging the order dated January 20, 2011 passed in S.A. No. 104(C)/2003-04 whereby the Odisha Sales Tax Tribunal, Cuttack, dismissed the second appeal filed by the present petitioner with the following findings: I perused the orders of both the forums below. Admittedly the appellant sold 'mota kunda' to oil mills and oil cakes to outside the State for an amount of Rs. 5,59,266. He took declaration in form C for such sales. He produced such declaration forms for sale of Rs. 4,92,619. Husk is the first outer-layer of the paddy. It is used as cattle feed. It does not contain any oil for extraction. The appellant sold 'mota kunda' to oil mills on taking declaration in form C. The huge amount of sale turnover and the fact of sale of the same to oil mills proved that the said mota kunda is not husk and the same was not sold as cattle feed. Therefore, the sale turnover of the appellant was not exempted from sales tax as per entry No. 30D of List A of the rate chart under the OST Act. So I did not find any defect in the order of the learned ACST in which he confirmed the order of the assessment of sales tax passed by the learned STO. In result, the appeal is dismissed and the order of the learned ACST is confirmed. 2. The essence of the contention of the petitioner is two fold, first being that there is a conflicting order passed by the Tribunal in S. A. No. 18(C) of 2003-04 on July 15, 2008 and the second point is about a decision delivered by the Division Bench of this court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Mangala Store, The essence of the contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has sold ''husk" and the sale of such "husk" is exempted as per entry 30D of List A of the rate chart under the Orissa Sales Tax Act. 3. For better appreciation of the case, entry No. 30D is quoted hereunder: 30D. Sale of feed and fodder such as husk, straw, hey, grass and manufactured mixed balanced feed for cattle, poultry, pig and aquatic excluding prawn feed. 3. For better appreciation of the case, entry No. 30D is quoted hereunder: 30D. Sale of feed and fodder such as husk, straw, hey, grass and manufactured mixed balanced feed for cattle, poultry, pig and aquatic excluding prawn feed. 4 Mr. Kar, learned Standing Counsel for the Commercial Taxes on the other hand vehemently argues that the commodity sold is not "husk" as claimed by the petitioner but is "coarse bran". He further asserts that the coarse bran is not covered under entry No. 30D and is also locally known as "mota kunda" and therefore cannot be held to be husk and has to be treated as "coarse bran" since the same has been purchased by oil mill for extracting oil therefrom by providing C declaration forms. Therefore, the Tribunal being the final fact-finding authority, has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner has sold "mota kunda" to oil mills which is held not to be husk and the same cannot be questioned in the present revision. 5. Having heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and standing counsel for the Commercial Tax Department as well as considered the judgment cited at the Bar, we are of the considered view that the case of State of Orissa Vs. Mangala Store, deals with the issue of "mustard oil cake" and not "mota kunda" as in the present case. Apart from that, admittedly in the present case as would be clear from entry No. 30D that it relates to exemption of tax on the sale of feed and fodder in respect of the item mentioned therein. In order to claim benefit of such entry, the sale must have been for the purpose of feed for cattle, poultry and aquatic excluding prawn feed. Hence, in the circumstances of the present case, no question of law arises. 6. In the case at hand, we do not find any good reason to entertain the present revision petition and we are in respectful agreement with the conclusion reached by the Tribunal in the impugned order. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.