Sanjay Kumar Nayak vs. Commnr. Of CT And GST, Odisha

Held

The High Court of Orissa at Cuttack disposed of the writ petition (W.P.(C) No.35107 of 2023) filed by Sanjay Kumar Nayak. The Court's decision was to follow and apply the common order previously passed by it on November 6, 2023. This common order addressed a batch of writ petitions, including W.P.(C) No.6684 of 2023 and others. The reasoning behind this decision is that the present writ petition is to be governed by the principles and directions laid down in the earlier common order. The specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi pertaining to the issues raised in the common order are not elaborated upon in this particular judgment. Consequently, the operative directions or relief granted are implicitly those determined in the common order of November 6, 2023. No issues were expressly left undecided in this order.

Facts

The petitioner, Sanjay Kumar Nayak, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack. The Opposite Parties were the Commissioner of CT & GST, Odisha, and others. The writ petition was disposed of by the Court on November 8, 2023, in terms of a common order previously passed by the same Court on November 6, 2023. This common order pertained to a batch of writ petitions, including W.P.(C) No.6684 of 2023 and others, filed by M/s. Pravat Kumar Choudhury and others against the Additional State Tax Officer, CT & GST, Cuttack, and others. The specific details of the petitioner's case, the tax period, the order or action under challenge, the authority that passed it, or the amount in dispute are not recorded in this order.

Key Issues

The judgment does not explicitly state the issues that the Court had to decide in this specific writ petition (W.P.(C) No.35107 of 2023). It merely states that the matter was disposed of in terms of a common order passed in a batch of other writ petitions. Therefore, the specific questions of law or mixed law and fact, and the provisions of the CGST/SGST Act or Rules they turned on, are not detailed for this case. Similarly, the arguments presented by the petitioner and the revenue or State are not recorded in this order. The judgment does not mention any authorities, circulars, or precedents relied upon for this specific disposal.