Niranjan Parmanik vs. Commnr. Of CT And GST, Odisha, Cuttack

Held

The High Court held that the present writ petition, W.P.(C) No.34924 of 2023, should be disposed of in terms of the common order previously passed by the Court on November 6, 2023. This common order addressed a batch of writ petitions, including W.P.(C) No.6684 of 2023 and others, filed by various petitioners against the CT & GST authorities. The reasoning for this decision is that the present petition is being treated as identical in its subject matter or legal basis to those decided in the common order. The ratio decidendi would be that if a matter is factually and legally similar to a batch of cases already decided by a common order, the same outcome should apply. The operative direction is the disposal of the writ petition in accordance with the aforementioned common order. No specific issue was left undecided; the Court applied its prior ruling.

Facts

The petitioner, Niranjan Parmanik, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack. The petition was disposed of in terms of a common order previously passed by the same Court on November 6, 2023. This common order was in relation to W.P.(C) No.6684 of 2023 and a batch of other writ petitions, specifically mentioning M/s. Pravat Kumar Choudhury and others v. Additional State Tax Officer, CT & GST, Cuttack and others. The respondents were the Commissioner of CT & GST, Odisha, and others. The specific tax period, amount in dispute, or the exact nature of the order or action under challenge by the petitioner are not detailed in this specific order, but it refers to a prior batch of cases.

Key Issues

The primary issue before the Court was the disposition of the present writ petition, W.P.(C) No.34924 of 2023. The Court had to decide whether to dispose of this petition in line with its prior common order dated November 6, 2023, which dealt with a batch of writ petitions including W.P.(C) No.6684 of 2023 and others. The petitioner, Niranjan Parmanik, sought relief from the High Court. The revenue, represented by the Commissioner of CT & GST, Odisha, and others, was the opposite party. The judgment does not explicitly state the arguments made by either side in this specific writ petition, but it indicates that the Court's decision was based on its previous pronouncements in a connected batch of cases.