M/S Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Cuttack vs. Addl Commissioner Of CT And GST, Territorial Range, Cuttack I

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, challenged a demand notice dated June 30, 2025, an order dated May 31, 2025, and a show-cause notice dated March 18, 2025. These actions stemmed from a revision proceeding initiated by the Additional Commissioner of CT & GST under Section 23(4)(a) of the Odisha Sales Tax Act, 1947 (OST Act). The revision concerned an assessment order for the period December 1, 1996, to March 31, 1997. Initially, an assessment order dated July 2, 2002, was passed, which was confirmed in appeals. However, this Court, in a revision petition, set aside the appellate order and remitted the matter for fresh assessment. The subsequent fresh assessment order dated June 4, 2022, reduced the demand to nil, leading to a refund claim of Rs. 20 lakhs. The Additional Commissioner then initiated revision proceedings, leading to a revised assessment order and a demand of Rs. 20,80,000/- comprising tax, surcharge, and penalty.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. While acknowledging the petitioner's arguments regarding the jurisdictional issue and the twin conditions under Rule 80 of the OST Rules, the Court noted that the revisional authority had invoked powers under Section 23(4)(a) of the OST Act and passed a detailed order. The Court emphasized the existence of an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 23(4)(c) of the OST Act. Citing various precedents on the distinction between want of jurisdiction and irregular exercise of jurisdiction, the Court stated that where an alternative remedy is available, it would desist from exercising its discretionary extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any view on the merits of the matter, including the jurisdictional issue concerning Rule 80. The petitioner was relegated to avail the alternative remedy of appeal before the Commissioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable against an order passed in suo motu revision under Section 23(4)(a) of the OST Act, given the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 23(4)(c) of the OST Act? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the Additional Commissioner lacked jurisdiction in invoking Section 23(4)(a) of the OST Act, particularly concerning the satisfaction of twin conditions under Rule 80 of the Odisha Sales Tax Rules, 1947 (OST Rules). They argued that since the revision was initiated under delegated power of the Commissioner, an appeal before the Commissioner under Section 23(4)(c) would be a futile exercise, thus justifying the exercise of writ jurisdiction. Revenue's arguments: The Opposite Parties argued that the Additional Commissioner, being an authority assisting the Commissioner and delegated powers under Section 17 of the OST Act, had validly invoked Section 23(4)(a). They contended that entertaining the writ petition would render the alternative remedy under Section 23(4)(c) otiose. They further argued that issues regarding the twin conditions under Rule 80 and factual disputes could be addressed by the appellate authority, and allowing the writ petition would permit the petitioner to circumvent the statutory remedy.