S. 2(h) Orissa Entry Tax Act | Tractor Trolley Not 'Motor Vehicle' & Not Amenable To Entry Tax: High Court

The Orissa High Court has held that tractor trailer/trolley is not a 'motor vehicle' as per Section 2(h) of the Orissa Entry Tax Act, 1999 ('OET Act') and therefore, not amenable to entry tax as per the said statute.Interpreting the meaning of 'motor vehicle' as per the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('MV Act') as well as the OET Act, the Division Bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo held:“We have already seen definition given of 'motor vehicle' and 'vehicle' in section...

CPC Provisions Govern Stay Of Execution Proceedings Initiated Under Section 36(1) Of Arbitration Act: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra has held that held that since the Arbitration Act is silent on the aspect of filing an application before the executing court to stay the operation of execution proceedings initiated under Section 36(1) of the Arbitration Act, the provisions of the CPC would be followed for this purpose. The High Court noted that the Arbitration Act provides in Section 35 that an arbitral award is final and binding, subject to the provisions of...

Limitation Period For Arbitration Starts From Date When Cause Of Action Accrued: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court bench of Justice D. Dash has held that the period of limitation for commencing arbitration runs from the date when the cause of arbitration accrued. This means from the date when the claimant first acquired the right to either take action or require arbitration. Therefore, the bench held that the limitation period for starting arbitration matches the period from when the cause of action would have accrued if there were no arbitration clause. The bench referred...

No Reappreciation Of Evidence Permitted Under Section 34 Of Arbitration Act, Arbitrator's Views Must Be Respected: Orissa High Court

The Orrisa High Court bench of Justice D. Dash held that in a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, reappreciating evidence is not allowed in order to replace the arbitrator's view with another. It held that the views expressed by the arbitrator must be considered as possible interpretations based on the factual circumstances. Section 34 deals with the application for setting aside an arbitral award. This section allows a party to challenge the...

Information Related To Outcome Of Tax Evasion Petition Sought Under RTI Act Can't Be Provided: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has held that information related to the outcome of a tax evasion petition sought under the Right to Information Act cannot be provided.The bench of Justice B.R. Sarangi and Justice G. Satapathy has observed that the claim of the petitioner with regard to the supply of information sought in the application filed under the Right to Information Act is not permissible in view of the provisions contained under clause (i) of Section 8(1) of the Right to Information Act. As per...

Reassessment Order Can't Merely Be Based On Tax Evasion Report Or An Audit Report: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has held that reassessment orders cannot merely be based on a tax evasion report or an audit report.The bench of Justice B.R. Sarangi and Justice G. Satapathy has observed that it is not enough if the Assessing Officer refers to the tax evasion report or an audit report; he has to independently apply his mind and record his satisfaction that there has been an escapement of tax. It is the mandatory minimum requirement of Section 43 of the OVAT Act.The petitioner or...

MSME Act | Council Cannot Entertain Application For Maintainability Of Reference At Conciliation Stage: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court single bench of Justice KR Mohapatra held that Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council doesn't have power to entertain an application with regard to the maintainability of the reference at the conciliation stage under Micro, Small And Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. It held that question of maintainability can only be adjudicated if arbitration is taken up by the Council. “The question of maintainability can only be adjudicated if arbitration...

Assessee To Approach Tribunal On Failure Of GST Dept. To Follow CESTAT's Direction, Writ Petition Not Maintainable: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has held that the writ petition is not maintainable as the assessee has to approach the tribunal on the failure of the GST department to follow the direction of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).The bench of Acting Chief Justice Dr. B.R. Sarangi and Justice Murahari Sri Raman has observed that it is incumbent upon the authority to give due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners adhering to the direction of the CESTAT. If the authority did...

Orissa High Court Allows Expenditure Towards Contribution For Running Of School As Business Expenditure

The Orissa High Court has held that the expenditure towards the contribution for the running of the school is a business expenditure.The bench of Justice S.K. Panigrahi and Justice G. Satapathy has observed that expenditure towards contribution for the running of the school is an expenditure for the smooth functioning of the business of the assessee and also an expenditure wholly and exclusively for the welfare of the employees of the assessee and, thus, allowable under Section 37(l) as well as...

Appeal Against ITAT Order Dismissing Revenue’s Recall Application Does Not Lie Before High Court: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has held that the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissing the department’s appeal on the ground of the low tax effect is appealable before the High Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961; however, an appeal against the ITAT order dismissing Revenue’s recall application does not lie before the High Court.The bench of Acting Chief Justice Dr. B.R. Sarangi and Justice Murahari Sri Raman has dismissed the appeal of the department...

Party Eligible For Interim Protection U/S 9(1) Arbitration & Conciliation Act, Regressive To Relegate To CPC Procedure: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has recently allowed applications for appointment of arbitrator u/s 11 and for interim protection u/s 9(1) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”) by Prathyusha- AMR, a Joint Venture. In allowing the plea for appointment of an arbitrator u/s 11 of the Act, a single-bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya noted that “a turning point” in negotiations between the parties may ‘re-vitalise’ limitation in order to sustain a ‘live claim.’In further allowing the...

Arbitral Award By MSEF Council Without Conciliation Process Under Section 18(2) Is Liable To Be Set Aside: Orrisa High Court

The High Court of Orrissa has held that the failure of the MSFE Council to refer the parties to ‘Conciliation’ as provided under Section 18(2) of the MSMED Act renders the award passed by it under Section 18(3) susceptible to setting aside under Section 34 of the A&C Act. The bench of Justice S.K. Panigrahi held that in terms of Section 18(2) of the MSMED Act, the MSEF Council to conciliate between the parties either itself or take assistance from any other institution. It held...