ORIENT PAPER MILLS LIMITED THE STATE OF ORISSA Vs. STATE OF ORISSAS:THE ORIENT PAPER MILLS LIMITED
LAWS(SC)-1961-3-22
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ORISSA)
Decided on
March 24,1961
ORIENT PAPER MILLS LTD.,STATE OF ORISSA
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ORISSA,ORIENT PAPER MILLS LIMITED
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
HIS HOLINESS KESAVANANDA BHARATI SRIPADAGALVARU SHRI RAGHUNATH RAO GANPAT RAO N H NAWAB MOHAMMAD IFTIKHAR ALI KHAN SHETHIA MINING AND MANUFACTURING CORPORATION LIMITED THE ORIENTAL GOAL GO LIMITED VS. STATE OF KERALA:UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1973-4-33] [RELIED ON]INDIAN COPPER CORPORATION LTD VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1965-3-12] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. VYANKATLAL [LAWS(SC)-1985-3-27] [APPLIED]
RAPIDUR INDIA LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-1986-10-9] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM SUNDAR DEREY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-1963-2-7] [REFERRED TO]
P RAMA RAO AND SONS VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-1989-8-22] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD VS. STATE OF U P AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2018-5-27] [REFERRED TO]
N V RAMAIAH VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-1985-11-15] [REFERRED TO]
BAHARUL ISLAM VS. INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION [LAWS(SC)-2023-1-71] [REFERRED TO]
SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDAL LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS [LAWS(SC)-2005-3-34] [REFERRED TO]
KHYERBARI TEA CO LIMITED KHYERBARI TEA CO LIMITED VS. STATE OF ASSAM:DESSAI AND PARBUTTIA TEA CO LTD [LAWS(SC)-1963-12-33] [REFERRED]
RAMESWAR PRASAD VS. SALES TAX OFFICER BALASORE CIRCLE [LAWS(ORI)-1973-3-1] [REFERRED TO]
TATA SPONGE IRON LTD. VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2008-8-70] [REFERRED TO]
TATA OIL MILLS LTD. VS. SALES TAX OFFICER [LAWS(KER)-1967-6-34] [REFERRED TO]
NARSINGH RAM VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2020-2-156] [REFERRED TO]
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-1998-2-2] [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-1989-11-33] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN ALUMINIUM CO VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(SC)-1996-2-201] [REFERRED TO]
ALKA SYNTHETICS LIMITED VS. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA SEBI [LAWS(GJH)-1997-2-49] [REFERRED]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. RAMANLAL SANKALCHAND AND CO [LAWS(GJH)-1963-11-9] [REFERRED TO]
SANDEEP PALACE GOPIGANJ BHADOHI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2003-11-138] [REFERRED TO]
ORISSA CEMENT LTD VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(ORI)-1991-8-11] [REFERRED TO]
IDL INDUSTRIES LTD VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2000-10-13] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT MOTORS VS. COMM OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, CTC [LAWS(ORI)-2011-7-52] [REFERRED TO]
Centum Electronics Limited (Earlier Solectron Centum Electronics Limited) VS. State of Karnataka [LAWS(KAR)-2013-8-235] [REFERRED TO]
R ABDUL QUADER AND CO VS. SALES TAX OFFICER 2ND CIRCLE HYDERABAD [LAWS(SC)-1964-2-30] [DISTINGUISHED]
M/S PULP N'PACK PRIVATE LTD VS. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [LAWS(APH)-2009-4-107] [REFERRED TO]
KANUBARI FOREST PRODUCTS (P) LTD. AND SEVEN ORS. VS. STATE OF NAGALAND [LAWS(GAU)-1995-4-17] [REFERRED TO]
MOOLCHAND PURUSHOTTAM PATEL VS. SALES TAX OFFICER [LAWS(BOM)-1971-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
JAY VEE RICE AND GENERAL MILLS VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(SC)-2010-9-36] [REFERRED TO]
A MANJULA BHASHINI VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR A P WOMENS COOPERATIVE FINANCE CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(SC)-2009-7-67] [REFERRED TO]
R S JOSHI SALES TAX OFFICER GUJARAT J S JOSHI SALES TAX OFFICER GUJARAT VS. AJIT MILLS LTD:IDAR TALUKA SAHAKARI [LAWS(SC)-1977-8-25] [RELIED ON]
MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LTD. AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-1996-12-183] [REFERRED TO]
ROPLAS INDIA LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-1988-7-32] [REFERRED TO]
HIND LAMPS LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX [LAWS(ALL)-2003-7-222] [REFERRED TO]
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(APH)-1974-12-17] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ CHITRA MANDIR ANPARA SONEBHADRA VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE [LAWS(ALL)-1996-4-108] [REFERRED TO]
KISAN SAHAKARI CHINI MILLS LTD. VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(ALL)-2017-3-105] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN ALUMINIUM CO VS. STATE OF MADRAS [LAWS(MAD)-1962-1-6] [REFERRED TO]
M BABU RAO VS. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO OP SOC OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY THE VASAVI CO OP URBAN BANK LTD [LAWS(APH)-2005-7-50] [REFERRED TO]
Y K SINGHAL VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1995-1-52] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. JYOTI KHARE VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-167] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX VS. SWADESHI POLYTAX LTD [LAWS(SC)-2005-9-95] [REFERRED TO]
BABU RAM GOLYANI VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-1984-5-19] [REFERRED TO]
KASTURI LAL HARLAL VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-1986-10-39] [AFFIRMED]
ASHOKA MARKETING LIMITED VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(SC)-1970-1-9] [DISTINGUISHED]
STANDARD BATTERIES LIMITED VS. APPRAISER APPRAISING DEPTT [LAWS(MAD)-1980-8-26] [REFERRED TO]
RAPTI COMMISSION AGENCY VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-2003-7-227] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENT PAPER AND INDUSTRIES LTD VS. SALES TAX OFFICER [LAWS(ORI)-1981-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
HIGH-WAY TRADING (PVT.) LTD. VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2022-5-118] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. JAGADEV BIRADAR [LAWS(KAR)-2016-7-21] [REFERRED TO]
ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. MADURA COATS LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1987-4-21] [REFERRED TO]
STATE LANGUAGE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION HYDERABAD VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2010-4-116] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Shah, J. -
(1.)The Orient Paper Mills Ltd., - hereinafter called the assessees- are a public limited company having their registered office at Brajrajnagar in the district of Sambalpur, Orissa State. The assessees are manufacturers of paper and paper-boards and are registered as dealers under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947-hereinafter referred to as the Act. The assessees used to collect tax from the purchasers on all sales effect by them including sales to dealers in other States. For the quarters ending March 31, 1950. June 30, 1950, September 30, 1950. December 31, 1950 and March 31, 1951, the assessees paid Sales-tax which they were assessed by the Assistant Collector of Sales-tax to pay, on their turnover which included sales outside the State of Orissa.
(2.)After this court delivered the judgment in State of Bombay vs. United Motors (India) Ltd., (1953) SCR 1069 the assessees applied for refund under S. 14 of the Act of tax paid in respect of goods despatched for consumption outside the State of Orissa contending that according to the law expounded by this court, the transactions of sales outside the state were not taxable under the Act because of the prohibition imposed by Art. 286 (1) (a) of the Constitution read with the Explanation. Refund was refused by the assistant Sales Tax Officer and the order was confirmed by the board of Revenue. In the view of the taxing authorities, the orders of assessment in respect of the five periods had become final on the diverse dates on which they were made and were not liable to be reopened merely because the law applicable to the transactions was not correctly appreciated by the taxing authorities. In petitions moved by the assessees for writs of certiorari and mandamus against the orders of the board of Revenue, the High Court of Orissa held that the only restriction upon the right of a dealer to apply for refund which "is found within the four corners of S. 14 of the Act" being the law of limitation prescribed by the proviso to that section, transactions in question not being liable to tax as they were inter-State transactions, the tax collected must be refunded on applications submitted within the period prescribed. The High Court then proceeded to hold that the recovery of tax paid for the first two quarters was barred by limitation but not recovery of tax paid for the remaining three quarters, and issued an order in the nature of mandamus directing refund of tax in respect of the last three quarters. The State of Orissa and the assessees have appealed with special leave against the judgment of the High Court by these five appeals.
(3.)Counsel for the State of Orissa contends that no refund could be granted because the orders of assessment had become final and S. 14 of the Act applied only to cases of refund in which a superior taxing authority in appeal or revision against the order of assessment directs or declares that the tax has not been properly collected, and it does not been properly collected, and it does not apply to cases of assessment which have become final, even if made on an erroneous view of the law. The assessees support the view of the High Court that S. 14 applies to all claims for refund and also contend that the recovery of tax paid for the first two quarters was not barred by the law of limitation.
(2.)After this court delivered the judgment in State of Bombay vs. United Motors (India) Ltd., (1953) SCR 1069 the assessees applied for refund under S. 14 of the Act of tax paid in respect of goods despatched for consumption outside the State of Orissa contending that according to the law expounded by this court, the transactions of sales outside the state were not taxable under the Act because of the prohibition imposed by Art. 286 (1) (a) of the Constitution read with the Explanation. Refund was refused by the assistant Sales Tax Officer and the order was confirmed by the board of Revenue. In the view of the taxing authorities, the orders of assessment in respect of the five periods had become final on the diverse dates on which they were made and were not liable to be reopened merely because the law applicable to the transactions was not correctly appreciated by the taxing authorities. In petitions moved by the assessees for writs of certiorari and mandamus against the orders of the board of Revenue, the High Court of Orissa held that the only restriction upon the right of a dealer to apply for refund which "is found within the four corners of S. 14 of the Act" being the law of limitation prescribed by the proviso to that section, transactions in question not being liable to tax as they were inter-State transactions, the tax collected must be refunded on applications submitted within the period prescribed. The High Court then proceeded to hold that the recovery of tax paid for the first two quarters was barred by limitation but not recovery of tax paid for the remaining three quarters, and issued an order in the nature of mandamus directing refund of tax in respect of the last three quarters. The State of Orissa and the assessees have appealed with special leave against the judgment of the High Court by these five appeals.
(3.)Counsel for the State of Orissa contends that no refund could be granted because the orders of assessment had become final and S. 14 of the Act applied only to cases of refund in which a superior taxing authority in appeal or revision against the order of assessment directs or declares that the tax has not been properly collected, and it does not been properly collected, and it does not apply to cases of assessment which have become final, even if made on an erroneous view of the law. The assessees support the view of the High Court that S. 14 applies to all claims for refund and also contend that the recovery of tax paid for the first two quarters was not barred by the law of limitation.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.