Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or issue any appropriate writ declaring that the interest under Section 50(1) is to be levied on the payment of tax by electronic cash ledger and not electronic credit ledger
Held that Chuni which is the by-product of Dal, it is one of the 16 ingredients into the making of cattle feed, and it is not the same thing as cattle feed. Chuni is not Cattle feed and therefore not amenable to Orissa Entry Tax Act, 1999.
Held that distinct commercial product Robinson Barley and Purity Barley cannot be classified as cereal. Hence taxable under residual entry @12% under Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947.
Orissa Stevedores Ltd. Vs Union of India (Orissa High Court) In view of submission made by the learned Senior Counsel that since all the bank accounts have been seized and the Petitioner is unable to operate, it is not possible to deposit the entire admitted interest at one go. Therefore, he prayed for lifting forthwith […]
Patel Brothers & Co Vs State of Odisha (Orissa High Court) Admittedly, the Petitioner Assessee is a manufacturer of Bidis. The short question is whether it is included within the entry Tobacco and Tobacco products in item 16 of the Schedule under the Orissa Entry Tax Act (OET Act). Learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks […]
Maharshi Steel Industries Vs Commissioner of Sales Tax (Orissa High Court) HC held that that the expression ‘tin containers’ is to be understood in the normal commercial and trade parlance and it would be erroneous for the Department to insist that only containers manufactured entirely out of tin should be considered to be tin containers. […]
Atlas Pvc Pipes Limited Vs State of Odisha (Orissa High Court) It is ex facie clear from the copy of Memo of Appeal in Form GST APL-01 vide Annexure-2 series to the writ petition that having received the Order passed under Section 74 of the OGST Act on 20.01.2021, the Petitioner filed the appeal invoking […]
Held that the information that does not touch upon any of the sensitive and confidential activities undertaken by the Vigilance Department, cannot be withheld.
Provisions of section 34 restricts the scope of interference with the arbitral award on the ground of public policy. Present arbitral award doesn’t contradict public policy hence interference unjustified.
Sovakar Guru Vs State of Odisha and Ors. (Orissa High Court) The grievance of the Petitioner, insofar as payment of arrears is concerned, has already been redressed but the interest component of the amount which has been held up for the last twenty-one years, is required to be paid. There is no dispute about the […]
