BharatTaxGST

M/S Swayam Prakash Badapanda, Keonjhar vs. The Commissioner Appeal GST, Cx And Customs, Bhubaneswar

Original PDF →
WP(C)/829/2026HC OrissaGSTCNR ODHC01094292202505 February 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE HARISH TANDON (CJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN2 pages

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Page 1 of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.829 of 2026 M/s. Swayam Prakash Badapanda …. Petitioner Mr. Bijay Panda, Advocate -versus- The Commissioner (Appeal) GST, CX & Customs, Bhubaneswar and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. Bismay Anand Prusty, Senior Standing Counsel for the GST, Central Excise & Customs CORAM: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No.

ORDER 05.02.2026 01. 1. The petitioner, a service provider of Tipper Trucks, was issued Demand-cum-Show-cause notice dated 15th October, 2020 under Section 73 of Chapter-V of the Finance Act, 1994, consequent upon which, Order-in-Original dated 6th June, 2024 was passed by the Assistant Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Keonjhar Division, wherein the proceeding stood dropped. However, the Department filed Appeal bearing File No.GAPPL/COM/STD/200/2025/11083 against the petitioner before the Commissioner (Appeals), GST, Central Excise & Customs, Bhubaneswar and the Commissioner (Appeals), GST, Central Excise & Customs, Bhubaneswar allowed the said appeal vide Order dated 28th November, 2025. 2. It is submitted by Sri Bijay Panda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Appellate Authority fell in error

by allowing the Appeal filed by the Department, inasmuch as the original assessment itself is barred by limitation.

3.

Sri Bismay Anand Prusty, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the GST, Central Excise and Customs submitted that the petitioner is not remediless as Section 86 of Chapter-V of the Finance Act, 1994 provides for remedy of Appeal to the Appellate Tribunal.

4.

Bare reading of the aforesaid Section 86 of Chapter-V of the Finance Act, 1994, reveals that the Petitioner-Assessee has remedy provided under the Finance Act, 1994 to challenge the impugned order before the Appellate Tribunal. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition.

5.

Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. However, this Court grants liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy provided under the statute in accordance with law. As a result of disposal of the writ petition, all Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

(M.S. Raman) Judge MRS/Laxmikant

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.