M/S. Sree Metaliks LTD. vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha

Mr. Ray, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client is successful Resolution Applicant (RA) in managing affairs of petitioner. The demand of tax for period 1st April, 2013 to 31st March, 2015 by revenue was rejected by the Tribunal on finding that the demand was not put before the Resolution Professional (RP) as a claim in the resolution of the corporate debtor. Impugned is communication dated 16th September, 2023 rejecting his client’s claim for refund of the pre- deposit made in the Odisha Sales Tax Tribunal, Cuttack Order No. 01. 2. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate, Standing Counsel appears on behalf of revenue and points out from impugned communication, the Tribunal did not make any such direction. Relied upon passage from the communication is reproduced below. “Moreover, the Hon’ble Odisha Sales Tax Tribunal, Cuttack in its order Vide S.A. No.34(ET) of 2022, dated 18/07/2023 has no where mentioned any such direction for refund of the claimed amount.”

Petitioner must find remedy from the Tribunal. Mr. Ray submits, his client had already withdrawn the revision application. We are told, the revision was filed against impugned communication. Its withdrawal has nothing to do with petitioner’s claim for appropriate direction, if permissible in law.

The writ petition is disposed of.

Urgent certified copy if duly applied for, be made available.