BharatTaxGST

M/S. Alom Extrusions LTD, Baleswar vs. The Chief Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha

Original PDF →
WP(C)/29659/2024HC OrissaGSTCNR ODHC01084339202403 January 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA,MR. JUSTICE M.S.SAHOO3 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 WP(C) No.29659 of 2024 M/s. Alom Extrusions Ltd., Balasore …. Petitioner Represented by Adv.- Mr. R.P. Kar, Senior Advocate Mr. A.N. Ray, Advocate Ms. Z.M. Wallace, Advocate -versus- The Chief Commissioner of CT and GST, Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Represented by Adv.- Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate (Standing Counsel) Mr. A. Kedia, Advocate (Junior Standing Counsel) CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO

ORDER 03.01.2025

1.

Mr. Kar, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, under challenge is order dated 31st December, 2023. Purported adjudication was on allegations based on audit report. He draws attention to Order No. 01. discussion and findings in the order to submit, non-application of mind is apparent therefrom. Relied upon passage is reproduced below. “Reply of the taxpayer filed on 27.10.2023 is not acceptable as it is not supported by sufficient documentary evidence. Further the taxpayer has an opportunity for filing rectification of this order within three months from the issue of order as per section 161 of the CGST/OGST Act, 2017.”

He points out, the order was made at 23:32 hours on 31st December, 2023, the last date in the extended time for making of it.

2.

Mr. Mishra, learned advocate, Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State revenue and Mr. Kedia, learned advocate, Junior Standing Counsel, for Central revenue.

3.

Mr. Mishra submits, petitioner has itself disclosed it had preferred appeal belatedly. On dismissal thereof it has now moved Court. However, on query from Court, Mr. Mishra submits, he cannot improve on impugned order. We accept submission made on behalf of petitioner that it is apparent there was non-application of mind. There is indication it was so considering the time it was made on the last date of the extended time.

4.

In the circumstances, we think fit to interfere.

5.

Impugned order is set aside and quashed.

6.

Mr. Kar submits, there be direction for his client being given further opportunity of hearing. On query made he points out from impugned order that the authority had impliedly given that opportunity by indicating that the tax payer has opportunity for filing for rectification. We accept this submission as well since an order without reasons would not have anything for rectification.

7.

Petitioner will communicate certified copy of this order to the authority by 17th January, 2025. On the communication petitioner will be entitled to obtain date of hearing, for the authority to pass order afresh. In event of omission to communicate as directed, impugned order will stand restored.

8.

The writ petition is disposed of.

( Arindam Sinha ) Judge

( M.S. Sahoo ) Judge

Prasant

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.