BharatTaxGST

M/S Qualicum Solutions PVT.LTD, Kolkata vs. The Chief Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack

Original PDF →
WP(C)/27285/2024HC OrissaGSTCNR ODHC01078865202408 November 2024Bench: 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 W.P.(C) No.27285 of 2024 M/s. Qualicum Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata …. Petitioner Represented By Adv. – Mrs. K. Roy Choudhury, Advocate -versus- The Chief Commissioner of CT and GST, Odisha, Cuttack and others …. Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr. Sunil Mishra, Standing Counsel CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO Order No.

ORDER 08.11.2024

01.1.

Mrs. Roy Choudhury, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, impugned is order dated 9th April, 2024 made under section 74 in Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. She draws attention to preceding show cause notice dated 29th January, 2024 and points out therefrom, her client was told that proceeding

// 2 //

under section 74 would be initiated because it had not, inter alia, furnished reply to communication by ASMT-10 dated 30th June, 2021 detail Reference no.ZD210621008659K. She demonstrates from page- 14, it is disclosure of reply dated 30th July, 2021 furnished by her client with reference to the referred communication. As such, revenue could not have proceeded under section 74 without considering her client’s reply. She seeks interference.

2.

Mr. Mishra, learned advocate, Standing Counsel appears on behalf of revenue and submits, the proceeding in which petitioner was asked to furnish reply was under section 61. Even though proceeding under section 74 was thereafter initiated overlooking petitioner’s reply, in the subsequent proceeding adequate opportunity of hearing was given to petitioner. In the circumstances, no prejudice was suffered by petitioner. The writ petition be dismissed.

4.

Section 61, by sub-section (2) requires consideration of explanation furnished. Sub-section (3) says, in case no satisfactory explanation is furnished, the proper officer may initiate appropriate action under, inter alia, section 74. On query made Mr. Mishra could not demonstrate that in impugned order made under section 74, said reply dated 30th July, 2021 was considered.

// 3 //

5.

Initiation of the proceeding under section 74 was clearly without juri iction. Impugned order is set aside and quashed. Petitioner’s said reply dated 30th July, 2021 is to be dealt with under section 61 and thereafter revenue can proceed.

6.

The writ petition is disposed of.

(Arindam Sinha)

Judge

(M.S. Sahoo)

Judge Sks

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.