Puspanjali Acharya vs. The Commnr. Of C.T. And G.S.T., Odisha

Held

The High Court of Orissa at Cuttack held that the present writ petition (W.P.(C) No.28294 of 2023) should be disposed of in terms of the common order previously passed by the Court on November 6, 2023. This common order pertained to W.P.(C) No.6684 of 2023 and a batch of other writ petitions. The reasoning is that the Court has already rendered a decision on similar matters, and this case is to follow that precedent. The operative direction is the disposal of the writ petition in accordance with the prior common order. No specific issues were decided independently in this judgment, as it relies entirely on the previous common order. The ratio decidendi is that matters identical or similar in nature to those decided in a common order should be disposed of on the same terms.

Facts

The petitioner, Puspanjali Acharya, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack. The Opposite Parties were the Commissioner of CT and GST, Odisha, and others. The writ petition was disposed of by the Court 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). No specific details regarding the tax period, amount in dispute, or the specific order/action under challenge by the petitioner were recorded in this judgment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present writ petition is to be disposed of in terms of the common order passed by this Court on November 6, 2023, in W.P.(C) No.6684 of 2023 and batch of writ petitions. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner, through their counsel, sought disposal of this writ petition in line with the common order of the Court dated November 6, 2023. No specific arguments were recorded for the petitioner beyond this. Revenue's Argument: The Opposite Parties, represented by the Standing Counsel and Additional Standing Counsel for the CT & GST Department, did not present any arguments against the disposal of the writ petition in terms of the aforementioned common order. The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue.