2008 INSC 1701
                                    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                       Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd.

                                                      Vs.

                                           Commr. of Sales Tax

                                           C.A.No.4933 of 2008

                              (S.H. Kapadia and B. Sudershan Reddy JJ.)

                                                  07.08.2008

                                                   ORDER

1. Leave granted.

The fundamental issue which arises for determination in a pending statutory Appeal No.AA-
302/CUIE/2006-2007/CT before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Cuttack-I Range:
Cuttack, Orissa, is whether sale of Superior Kerosene Oil by the appellant-Bharat Petroleum
Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) to another oil company via PDS route is exempted from sales tax in
terms of notification dated 1st July, 2000 issued by the Finance Department, Government of
Orissa.

2. Before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Cuttack-I, an application for stay was
moved. It was refused. Aggrieved by the decision refusing stay, the interim matter was
carried by the appellant herein in revision to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,
Cuttack, Orissa. The Revisional Authority partly allowed the Revision Petition and directed
the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.65 lakhs. Being aggrieved, a Writ Petition came to be filed
by the appellant Company. By the impugned order, the High Court directed the appellant-
BPCL to pay a sum of Rs.20 lakhs pending hearing and final disposal of the appeal by the
Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. Hence this Civil Appeal.

3. Normally, this Court does not interfere in interim matters particularly when the matter
concerns levy of tax. However, this is a peculiar case for two reasons, i.e., BPCL Ltd. is a
public sector company in a priority sector which is obliged to sell kerosene via PDS route.
The demand is for Rs.1.34 Crores (approx.) and, in the circumstances, we are of the view
that to call upon BPCL at this stage to deposit a huge amount of Rs.1.34 Crores (approx.)
would have a serious effect on the PDS sales. On the other hand, we are satisfied that BPCL
is a substantial company. It is in a sound financial position and it can discharge its liability at
a later date, if need be.

1  SpotLaw
4. In the circumstance, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met if the Assistant
Commissioner of Sales Tax, Cuttack is directed to hear and dispose of the First Appeal
pending before him within a period of three months from today.

5. Before concluding, we may also record that BPCL through its counsel has given an
undertaking to this Court that in the event of the Department succeeding in the appeal
pending before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Cuttack, it will pay the tax due
with interest in accordance with the provisions of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947.

6. Before concluding, we may point out that, according to the Department, the transactions in
question do not constitute PDS sales. This question will also have to be gone into by the
Assistant Commissioner of Sale Tax, Cuttack, in the pending First Appeal. We express no
opinion in that regard.

7. Pending First Appeal, however, no coercive steps to be taken.

Civil Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

2  SpotLaw