M/S.Paradeep Phosphates LTD, Bhubaneswar vs. Odisha Slaes Tax Tribunal, Cuttack

This matter is taken up through virtual mode.

An Interlocutory order dated 11th February, 2026 vide Annexure-1 in connection with second appeal bearing SA No.148 (ET) of 2018 passed by the learned Full Bench of the Odisha Sales Tax Tribunal, Cuttack (“OSTT”, for brevity) refusing to adjudicate juri ictional issue raised qua assessment framed under Section 10 of the Odisha Entry Tax Act, 1999 (“OET Act”, for short) during the pendency of consideration of claim for benefit of exemption by the learned National

Challenge is also made to an order dated 12th March, 2026 rejecting petition filed by the petitioner to recall said interlocutory order on the ground of lack of juri iction to exercise power of review and, thereby refusing to recall the aforesaid order dated 11th February, 2026 vide Annexure-2. 3. From the facts adumbrated in the pleadings and undisputed by the opponents, it would transpire that the petitioner was assessed to entry tax under Section 10 of the OET Act by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jagatsinghpur Circle, Paradeep, vide order dated 6th January, 2014 which was set aside by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeal) vide order dated 18th September, 2018 in the first appeal preferred under Section 16 of said Act with a direction to undertake assessment afresh.

Expanding his argument further, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner approached the BIFR under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short, “the SICA”) for grant of relief and a scheme was approved entitling it to claim exemption from payment of entry tax for a period of 7 years, i.e., from 31st of March, 2007 till 31st of March, 2014. 4. 2. Under an impression that the Government would grant such benefit, the petitioner-company filed Misc. Application before BIFR for de-registration as a sequel to the net worth of the company having turned positive as per the audited balance sheet: 31.03.2011. The BIFR passed an order to the effect that “the company M/s. Paradeep Phosphates Ltd. (PPL) has ceased to be a ‘sick industrial undertaking’ within the meaning of Section 3(1)(0) of the Act”.

The State Government in Finance Department as well as the Commissioner of Sales Tax instead of complying with the terms of the Scheme sanctioned by said BIFR denied such exemption. Therefore, the petitioner had to approach the BIFR on 18.06.2014 by filing a petition, registered as Miscellaneous Application No. 285 of 2014. 4. 4. During the pendency of the matter before the BIFR, the assessment order dated 06.01.2014 under Section 10 of the OET Act was passed. Despite pendency of matter before the BIFR being brought to the notice of the appellate authority under Section 16 of the OET Act, the appeal was disposed of by setting aside the assessment.

Upon repeal of the SICA, the matter was transferred to National Company Law Tribunal (be referred to as “NCLT”) in view of introduction of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The NCLT having turned down to entertain such a plea of the petitioner, an appeal was preferred before the learned National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (be referred to as “NCLAT” interfered with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the appeal learned OSTT under a mistaken perception observed thus: “The fundamental issue of juri iction of assessment to invoke reassessment under Section 10 of the OET Act is a question to be decided by this Tribunal and in the event of such question is decided pending the appeal before the NCLAT, we are of the considered opinion that it will render the issues before the NCLAT otiose and is also beyond the judicial discipline.”

It is further submitted that the petitioner prayed before the learned OSTT to recall the interlocutory order No.48, dated 11th February, 2026 by way of an application, but in vain. By order No.49, dated 12.03.2026, said OSTT refused to recall the order and placed the second appeal for final hearing.

Per contra, Mr. Sourav Tibrewal, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the CT & GST Organisation-opposite parties submitted that the cause of action challenging the orders dated 11th February, 2026 and 12th March, 2026 (Annexures-1 and 2 respectively) does not survive in view of the Judgment dated 18th May, 2026 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.193 of 2023 rendered by the learned NCLAT disposing of the appeal, as enclosed to the I.A. No.10413 of 2026 filed by the petitioner.

Learned ASC for Revenue thus submitted that in order to dispose of second appeal, the learned OSTT awaited for the result of appeal preferred by the petitioner before the NCLAT qua exemption from payment of entry tax. It is submitted that instead of deciding the second appeal piecemeal, the learned OSTT has thought it prudent to address each of the grounds agitated by the petitioner.

We have gone through the records and heard Sri Bibekananda Mohanti, learned Senior Advocate and Sri Sourav Tibrewal, learned Additional Standing Counsel. Though, the matter is listed for fresh admission, both the counsels agreed for the matter to be finally heard and disposed of.

It is found from the document enclosed to I.A. No.10413 of 2026 that the pending case before NCLAT, awaited by the OSTT, has been disposed of by Judgment dated 18.05.2026. In considered view of this Court interest of justice would be best sub-served if a direction is issued by this Court for taking up the second appeal by the OSTT for hearing and disposal by considering all the grounds agitated by the petitioner. The question as posed by the petitioner is left open for adjudication in appropriate proceeding.

In view of the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, it would be apt to direct the learned Odisha Sales Tax Tribunal, being final fact-finding authority and vested with power to adjudicate both questions of law as well as facts, to expedite

It is further observed that no part of this shall be treated to be expression of opinion of this Court on merits of the contentions of the parties to the second appeal before the learned OSTT. This Court has not expressed any view on the merit of the second appeal to be adjudicated by the learned Odisha Sales Tax Tribunal.

The learned Odisha Sales Tax Tribunal shall fix a date of hearing of second appeal being SA No.148(ET) of 2018 and may decide the second appeal by taking into consideration the grounds and the materials available on record including the juri ictional issue and questions of law that would arise for consideration.

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition along with pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands disposed of. No costs.