Gobinda Chandra Sahoo vs. Commnr. Of State Tax, Commissionerate Of CT And GST, Cuttack

Held

The Court held that the present writ petition (W.P.(C) No.28641 of 2023) was to be disposed of in terms of the common order previously passed by the High Court on November 6, 2023, in W.P.(C) No.6684 of 2023 and a batch of other writ petitions. The reasoning for this decision is that the present case was deemed to be covered by the principles and directions established in that common order. The ratio decidendi is that if a matter is identical or substantially similar to a case already decided by a common order, the subsequent case should follow the same disposition. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in accordance with the prior order. No specific issues were decided independently for this petition, as it was subsumed under the previous ruling. Any issues expressly left undecided are not recorded.

Facts

This writ petition, filed by Gobinda Chandra Sahoo, was disposed of by the Orissa High Court on November 14, 2023. The petitioner approached the Court challenging an order or action passed by the Commissioner of State Tax, Commissionerate of CT and GST, Cuttack, and others. The specific tax period(s) and the amount in dispute are not recorded in this judgment. The procedural history leading to this writ petition is also not detailed. The Court's decision was based on a common order previously passed on November 6, 2023, in a batch of writ petitions, including W.P.(C) No.6684 of 2023 (M/s. Pravat Kumar Choudhury and others v. Additional State Tax Officer, CT & GST, Cuttack and others).

Key Issues

The primary issue before the Court was whether the present writ petition should be disposed of in terms of the common order passed in a batch of related writ petitions. The petitioner, Gobinda Chandra Sahoo, sought relief from the Court concerning an action or order by the Commissioner of State Tax, Cuttack. The Court had to decide if the principles and directions laid down in the common order of November 6, 2023, were applicable to this case. The petitioner's side relied on the arguments and outcome of the aforementioned batch of writ petitions. The revenue or State's side, represented by the Standing Counsel for the CT & GST Department, would have presented their arguments in the batch of cases, which presumably formed the basis for the common order. The judgment does not explicitly frame specific questions of law or detail the arguments presented by each side in this particular writ petition, other than stating it was disposed of in terms of the common order.