M/S Nutan Steelex vs. Joint Commissioner Of State Tax,(Appeal) Territorial Range , Cuttack
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
J U D G M E N T
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dates of hearing : 17th September, 2024 and 26th September, 2024
Date of judgment: 26th September, 2024
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- therein petitioner/dealer to submit reply to the show cause notice.
Mr. Mishra, learned advocate, Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State and submits, order dated 23rd July, 2024 (supra) is not applicable. Impugned order was made by the First Appellate Authority. He draws attention to sub-section (11) in section 107 of Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 to submit, contention of violation of principles of natural justice could not and cannot be taken before said authority because the authority does not have power of remand.
W.P.(C) no.22054 of 2024
Without prejudice he submits, sub-section (4) in section 75 requires requisition made in writing for opportunity of hearing. In this case petitioner had not replied to the show cause notice.
We accept Mr. Mishra’s contention on inapplicability of order dated 23rd July, 2024 (supra) but for different reason. We reproduce below paragraph-3 from said order. “Petitioner is relying on directions given in the show cause notice. It was in respect of a demand. Any defect in the show cause notice would cause violation of principles of natural justice. On query made Mr. Mishra in fairness submits, time be extended for petitioner to file reply and thereafter in event personal hearing is sought, it will be given.”
(emphasis supplied) The order was made on concession. It cannot be a precedent in any case. We have opportunity to and clarify that we had not thereby taken a view on sub-section (4) in section 75. 6. True it is that sub-section (11) in section 107 does not empower the authority to remand/restore the case. However, the
W.P.(C) no.22054 of 2024
provision does not cause any impediment for us to exercise extraordinary writ juri iction.
Be that as it may, we are aware the order in original had been made ex-parte against petitioner, on no reply to the show cause notice. However, petitioner exercised its statutory right of appeal by invoking juri iction of the First Appellate Authority, who passed impugned order dated 31st July, 2024. Mr. Jena submits, the return was filed before issuance of the show cause notice but it is apparent therefrom, it was not considered. On query from Court Mr. Mishra submits, petitioner has further statutory remedy before the appropriate authority, also empowered to find on facts. We make it clear, in event petitioner exercises its right of further statutory remedy, it will be at liberty of also take this and any other point on fact as well as in law.
Impugned order does not warrant interference. The writ petition is disposed of as above. ( Arindam Sinha ) Judge
( M.S. Sahoo ) Judge
Jyostna/Radha
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.