Patchava Karunakar vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Central Tax , Jharsuguda
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER 09.07.2025 02. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
Assailed in this writ petition is an Order-in-Original No.142/DCCE/ST/JSG/2023, dated 21.12.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Jharsuguda Division under Annexure-1. 3. The Petitioner, engaged as contractor for supply of RMC & Road Metal to M/s. Gammon India Ltd. during the year 2008-09, stopped its business operations in the year 2011. It has not conducted any business operation in the State of Odisha. On its Bank account being attached, it has come to its notice that the attachment notices were related to certain demands pertaining to Order-in-Original dated 21.12.2023. Though the attachment orders were challenged in writ petition being WP(C) No.15299 of 2025, the same was allowed to be withdrawn vide order dated 03.06.2025 with liberty to file a fresh petition. Therefore, challenging the said ex parte assessment order vide Annexure-1, this instant writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner invoking provisions under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.
Mr. Anil Bezawada, learned counsel along with Mr. Subrat Panda, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner vehemently contended that no notice to participate in proceeding initiated by the Deputy Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Jharsuguda Division under Section 73 of Chapter-V of the Finance Act, 1994 with respect to the Financial Year 2015-16 has ever been served on the Petitioner inasmuch as no business activity has been carried in the State of Odisha since 2011. 4. 1. It is submitted that non-receipt of notice of assessment has been intimated to the Department vide Letter dated 26.04.2025 and the authorities concerned were requested to lift the attachment orders to facilitate the petitioner to operate its bank account. Since such request was not acceded to by the authority concerned, after obtaining copy of Order-in-Original, this writ petition has been filed. It is fervently prayed by the petitioner to grant an opportunity to have its say in the matter before the statutory authority.
On 01.07.2025, when the matter was taken up, Mr. Mukesh Agarwal, learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party-Department sought for an accommodation to obtain instruction to ascertain whether the notice of assessment was served on the Petitioner. Accordingly, this matter is taken on board today being listed.
The learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party submits that though notice/intimation were issued to the Petitioner, there is no evidence available with the Department to demonstrate that the service of notice was effected on the Petitioner at any point of time.
Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner drew attention of this Court to paragraph-4 of the impugned order to indicate that the authority
concerned has merely stated to have issued notices by Registered Post, but there is nothing on record to suggest that the same was served on the Petitioner. It is asserted that the petitioner has no business activity in the State of Odisha since 2011. He submitted that before proceeding to passed ex parte order, it is incumbent upon the authority to have ascertained whether such notices issued were served on the Petitioner. He, therefore, submitted that the non-appearance for the Petitioner before the Assessing Authority was not on account of any deliberate ignorance or defiance, but due to circumstances beyond his control.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party.
Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order, it is transpired that that notice was not served upon the Petitioner, as it is admitted that the department has no material to justify service of notice on the petitioner. Therefore, the Order-in-Original dated 21.12.2023 vide Annexure-1 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Jharsuguda Division cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside and the matter requires remand to the authority concerned for fresh adjudication. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.12.2023 is set aside and the matter was remanded to the authority concerned for passing orders afresh upon affording opportunity of hearing.
It is undertaken by Mr. Mukesh Agarwal, learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party-Department that he shall supply a copy of notice of assessment on Mr. Subrat Panda, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner within three working days. On receipt of such notice, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner shall file reply/explanation with evidence/documents, if any, within two weeks thereafter. If the such documents are filed and upon hearing the petitioner, the authority concerned may pass necessary orders by concluding the proceeding within two months thereafter.
With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands 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.