Sabita Choudhury vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER 15.05.2026
Assailing the order dated 12.09.2024 passed under Section 63 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Collectively, “the GST Act”) by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Mayurbhanj Circle, Balasore pertaining to tax periods from April 2020 to March 2021, the petitioner has come up before this Court with the following prayer(s):
“It is therefore prayed that, this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to:- A) Issue Writ of Certiorari in quashing impugned order dated 12.09.2024 under Annexure-1 to the extent temporary GST ID:212400002369TMP B) Issue Writ of Mandamus in directing Opp.party i.e. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Mayurbhanj Circle, Balasore, CT
& GST to modify the order dated 12.09.2024 under Annexure-1 inserting the original GST registration GSTIN/Unique ID:21BDVPC7114C1ZO which is active enabling the petitioner to deposit the demand. And/or pass any other order/orders, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the ends of justice and fair play. And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound, shall ever pray.”
Assessment was framed under Section 63 of the GST Act in pursuance of show cause notice dated 25.07.2024 by creating Temporary Registration bearing ID 212400002369TMP. As the Registration Certificate granted under the GST Act was cancelled on 18.01.2020, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing the writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.12842 of 2024, wherein this Court passed the following order:
“This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.
Learned counsel for CT & GST Department appearing on an advance notice states that as long as delay in filing the revocation application is condoned, and provided the Petitioner complies with all the requirements of paying the taxes, interest, late fee, penalty etc. due, the 3B Return Form filed by the Petitioner will be accepted by the Opposite Parties.
In that view of the matter, the delay in Petitioner’s invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules (OGST Rules) is condoned and it is directed that subject to the Petitioner depositing all the taxes, interest, late fee, penalty etc. due and complying with other formalities, the Petitioner’s application for revocation will be considered in accordance with law.
A copy of this order will be produced by the Petitioner before the proper officer, and subject to the Petitioner complying with the above conditions, the proper officer will open the portal to enable the Petitioner to file the GST return.
The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.”
The petitioner complied with the aforesaid order of this Court by depositing the tax along with interest. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though entire liability as demanded in the assessment order dated 12.09.2024 has been discharged, the portal of the CT & GST Organisation displays the demand as outstanding.
Furnishing an additional affidavit dated 15.05.2026 enclosed therewith documents showing deposit of Rs.7,29,442/- (Rs.3,64,721/- towards CGST and Rs.3,64,721/- towards OGST) against GSTIN:21BDVPC7114C1Z0, it is submitted by Sri Prabodha Chandra Nayak, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner on depositing the entire demanded tax raised under Section 63 of the GST Act, in view of order of which Court in the aforesaid writ petition, the Registration Certificate was restored and the authority concerned should have taken prompt steps to nullify the demand raised in the assessment by taking into consideration the amount of deposit made as a discharge of liability in terms of the assessment order dated 12.09.2024. 5. Opposing vehemently, Sri Sunil Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the CT & GST Organisation sought to urge that the demand was raised against GSTIN/TEMP ID
212400002369TMP, whereas the petitioner having deposited the amount against GSTIN:21BDVPC7114C1Z0, there is no flaw in depicting demand of Rs.3,64,721/- towards CGST and Rs.3,64,721 towards OGST. Since the petitioner has not deposited the demand raised in the assessment under Section 63 against GSTIN/TEMP ID 212400002369TMP, he is not entitled to raise such grievance by way of this writ petition. However, it is submitted that the petitioner has already approached the authority concerned by way of representation dated 25.04.2025, which can be directed to be considered.
The additional affidavit filed by the petitioner is taken on record. Heard counsel appearing for both the sides. Perusal of record reveals that in the assessment order dated 12.09.2024 vide Annexure-1, a demand of Rs.7,29,442/- has been raised in exercise of power under Section 63 of the GST Act as against GSTIN/TEMP ID 212400002369TMP which comprises Rs.4,159,536/- towards tax (OGST + CGST) and Rs.2,69,906 towards interest.
It is transpired that this Court vide order dated 20.05.2024 directed the proper officer to open portal to enable the petitioner to file GST return subject to deposit of tax, interest, late fee, penalty etc. It is manifest from the document furnished along with additional affidavit that the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs.7,29,442/- on 29.04.2026 against GSTIN: 21BDVPC7114C1Z0 in connection with the direction of this Court in the writ petition. It is thus abundantly clear that as the demand of tax and interest raised in the assessment under Section 63 against GSTIN/TEMP ID 212400002369TMP, the petitioner has deposited the said amount against GSTIN: 21BDVPC7114C1Z0 pursuant to order dated 20.05.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.12842 of 2024, the authority under a mistaken notion has not given due credit of. It is discernible from the documents furnished that the petitioner, in fact, discharged her liability as adjudicated upon in the assessment under Section 63 against GSTIN/TEMP ID 212400002369TMP by making deposit of entire demanded tax and interest against GSTIN: 21BDVPC7114C1Z0. If that be so, the CT & GST Organisation is not entitled to recover the tax and interest twice on the same transactions. Double taxation is anathema to the taxation principles.
In such view of the matter, the objection of the learned Standing Counsel cannot be sustained and the matter is referred to the Assessing Authority who is directed to take into consideration the deposit of tax and interest made on 29.04.2026 as against GSTIN: 21BDVPC7114C1Z0 and set off the same against the demand raised under Section 63 of the GST Act against GSTIN/TEMP ID 212400002369TMP vide order dated 12.09.2024. 9. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Mayurbhanj Circle, Balasore shall verify the said deposit and consider the request made by the petitioner in representation dated 27.07.2025 within two weeks from date. After such verification, rectifying the records, update the portal of the GST Organization forthwith accordingly.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice
(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.