Sushanta Kumar Das vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs, Dept. Of Revenue, New Delhi

Held

The High Court of Orissa at Cuttack disposed of the writ petition of Sri Sushanta Kumar Das in terms of its common order dated November 6, 2023, passed in W.P.(C) No.6684 of 2023 and a batch of other writ petitions. The specific findings and reasoning of the common order are not detailed in this judgment. However, by disposing of the present petition in terms of the common order, the Court has applied the principles and directions laid down in that earlier order to the facts of this case. The operative directions would be those contained in the common order, which could include remanding the matter, deleting demands, or granting specific relief to the petitioner, depending on the nature of the grievances addressed in the batch of petitions.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Sushanta Kumar Das, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack. The petition was disposed of by the Court in terms of a common order previously passed on November 6, 2023, in W.P.(C) No.6684 of 2023 and a batch of other writ petitions. The common order was in the case of M/s. Pravat Kumar Choudhury and others v. Additional State Tax Officer, CT & GST, Cuttack and others. The opposite parties included the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs and other revenue authorities.

Key Issues

The judgment does not explicitly state the specific issues that the Court had to decide in this particular writ petition (W.P.(C) No.30922 of 2023). However, it is stated that the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of a common order passed in a batch of writ petitions. Therefore, the issues decided in the common order would be relevant. The common order likely dealt with grievances related to GST and the actions of GST authorities. The petitioner would have argued for relief against the impugned order or action, likely based on procedural irregularities, incorrect application of law, or violation of principles of natural justice. The revenue authorities would have defended their actions, possibly relying on relevant provisions of the GST Act and Rules.