Aditya Dev Infratech PVT. LTD., Bbsr vs. Joint Commissioner Of State Tax, Bbsr Ii Circle
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER 14.08.2026 (Hybrid mode)
Challenging the impugned order dated 14.02.2025 passed under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Collectively, “the GST Act”) by the opposite party no.1 (Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Bhubaneswar II Circle, Bhubaneswar) for the Financial Year 2020-21, raising a demand of Rs.7,75,22,568/- despite the fact that Assistant Commissioner (Preventive) GST & Central Excise Commissionerate, Bhubaneswar has already issued an order dated 27.06.2023 discharging the petitioner from any further proceedings under Section 73 of the GST Act for the period July
2017-March 2022, the petitioner has come up before this Court with the following prayer(s):
“In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to- A. Admit the writ petition and issued appropriate writ(s) quashing the impugned order dated 14.02.2025 passed by the OP No.1 under Annexure-18, and consequential proceeding thereto; B. In the alternative, set aside the impugned order dated 14.02.2025 and allow the Petitioner to once again participate in the proceedings before the OP No.1 by raising all the availabhle grounds including the ground of juri iction raised in the present writ petition, to be decided by way of a speaking order, C. Pass such other order(s) as may be deemed just and proper in the interest of justice. And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”
It is submitted by Mr. Rudra Prasad Kar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Saswat Kumar Acharya, learned Advocate that the proceedings have been illegally initiated despite the fact that the Assistant Commissioner (Preventive) vide his order dated 27.06.2023 has clearly stated that no further proceeding against the petitioner shall be initiated on the issue of short payment of GST. Nonetheless, the opposite party No.1 (Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Bhubaneswar-II Circle, Bhubaneswar, Odisha) proceeded and passed the order for short payment of GST which is highly illegal and arbitrary and is contrary to the tenet of the statutory provisions.
Earlier upon completion of investigation in pursuance of the search and inspection the petitioner was directed to deposit the demanded amount which was duly complied by the petitioner. Notwithstanding such bona fide act of the petitioner, by way of the impugned order another proceeding has been instituted by the State Authorities which is not tenable in the eye of law.
Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the CT & GST Organisation, raising objection as to entertainment of the writ petition inasmuch as availability of alternative remedy to question the propriety of the adjudication order, would submit that the petitioner can very well be relegated to avail opportunity to place material on facts before the Appellate Authority, who is competent to deal with the same on merit.
In course of the hearing, Mr. Rudra Prasad Kar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as suggested by the learned Standing Counsel, the petitioner may be permitted to pursue remedy before the Appellate Authorities. Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the CT&GST Organisation has no objection to such submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner.
Considering the submissions made, this Court permits the writ petitioner to file appeal subject to statutory requirement along with a petition for limitation before the Appellate Authority within a period four weeks from today. In such eventuality, the Appellate Authority shall consider the appeal along with the limitation petition and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. It is made clear that nothing stated hereinabove shall be construed as expression of opinion of this Court. It is also clarified that all questions of fact as well as law are left open to be decided by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority shall also consider defreezing of any of bank accounts, which are stated to be under attachment so as to facilitate the petitioner to run its business.
With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition along with pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(Manash Ranjan Pathak) Judge
(M.S. Raman) Judge
Aswini
Reproduced from the public record of the Orissa High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.