BharatTaxGST

M/S G.L. And Sons., Sundargarh vs. Assistant Commissioner State Tax, CT And GST Circle, Rourkela I

Original PDF →
WP(C)/12860/2025HC OrissaGSTCNR ODHC01032497202509 May 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. 12860 of 2025 M/s. G.L. & Sons, Rourkela, Sundargarh …. Petitioner Mr. P.K. Harichandan, Advocate -versus- Assistant Commissioner State Tax, CT & GST Circle, Rourkela-I and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. Sunil Mishra, Standing Counsel (OP Nos.1 to 5) Mr. Ch. Satyajit Mishra, Senior Standing Counsel (OP No.6) CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No.

ORDER 09.05.2025 01. 1. Choudhury Satyajit Mishra, learned Senior Standing Counsel appears on behalf of opposite party No.6 and files his appearance memo in the Court today which is taken on record.

2.

Heard Mr. P.K. Harichandan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for CT & GST Organization.

3.

Assailing the order dated 4th February, 2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Rourkela-I for the tax period from April, 2018 to September, 2018 under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the present writ petition has been filed.

4.

Mr. P.K. Harichandan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire assessment is based on the allegation of bogus input tax credit being claimed on account of supplies received from non-existent supplier found during the course of the investigation and consequent upon the same, the input tax credit (ITC) claimed in respect of transaction between the supplier and the petitioner during the period from April, 2018 to September, 2018 has been disallowed and accordingly the demand has been imposed. It is submitted that the registration certificate of the supplier being cancelled in the year 2019, the input tax credit claimed in the returns could not have been disallowed on flimsy grounds.

5.

Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the CT & GST Organization vehemently opposed for entertaining this writ petition on the ground that effective and efficacious alternative remedy is provided in the statute. The authority under the GST Act(s) is competent to adjudicate the factual dispute and re- appreciate the evidence adduced or to be adduced by the petitioner vis-à-vis material available on record.

6.

At this stage, Mr. Harichandan, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks withdrawal of the writ petition to approach the appellate authority/forum as provided under the CGST/OGST Act.

7.

Ch. Satyajit Mishra, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the opposite party No.6 considered that the petitioner should be relegated to avail the opportunity of alternative remedy as provided in the statute.

8.

Faced with such situation, this Court grants liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority as available under the CGST/OGST Act.

9.

In such view of the matter, the writ petition stands disposed of as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.

(Harish Tandon)

Chief Justice

(M.S. Raman) Judge

S. Behera

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.