BharatTaxGST

Maa Dakhinakali W.C.S.LTD, Cuttack vs. Chief Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes (C.T.) And Goods And Service Tax, Cuttack

Original PDF →
WP(C)/10096/2025HC OrissaGSTCNR ODHC01024889202509 July 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE HARISH TANDON (CJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN3 pages

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Page 1 of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.10096 of 2025 Maa Dakhinakali Mahila W.C.S. Limited …. Petitioner Ms. Itishree Tripathy, Advocate -Versus- Chief Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (CT) and Goods & Services Tax (GST) and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. Sunil Mishra, Standing Counsel CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No.

ORDER 09.07.2025 03. 1. The order dated 19th March, 2025 passed by the Authority in rejecting the application for rectification under Section 161 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 is assailed in the instant writ petition. The order communicated/uploaded on the portal contains two pages which according to Ms. Itishree Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be collated.

2.

However, in course of hearing, we notice that there is a statutory remedy provided to the petitioner under Section 107 of the said Act and all points sought to be agitated in the instant writ petition is amenable to be agitated before the Appellate Authority.

3.

We further find that the instant writ petition was filed on the advice having given to the writ petitioner within the period of limitations provided for filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The petitioner appears to have been acted bona fide on the advice extended in this regard. Though there is no absolute fetter on the part of the writ Court in entertaining the instant writ petition, when the statutory remedy by way of an appeal is available but the Court may in a particular case refused to exercise such discretion and may relegate the parties to exhaust the statutory remedy provided to such aggrieved person.

4.

We do not find any distinction having made in Sub- Section-1 of Section-107 of the said Act on the basis of nature of an order but any decision of the order passed under the said Act is amenable to be challenged by way of an appeal before the Appellate Authority.

5.

We thus, refused to exercise the discretion and relegate the petitioner to exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal provided under the said Act.

6.

This writ petition is thus, disposed of.

(Harish Tandon)

Chief Justice

(M.S. Raman) Judge

A. Nanda

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.