BharatTaxGST

M/S. Jain Road Carrier PVT. LTD., Bbsr vs. Addl. Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, Bbsr

Original PDF →
WP(C)/28916/2023HC OrissaGSTCNR ODHC01070008202305 September 2023Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA,MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA2 pages

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Page 1 of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 28916 of 2023 M/s. Jain Road Carrier Pvt. Ltd., BBSR …. Petitioners Mr. Jagabandhu Sahoo, Sr. Advocate Ms. Kajal Sahoo, Advocate -versus- Addl. Commissioner, GST and Central Excise, BBSR and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. Avinash Kedia, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No.

ORDER 05.09.2023

01.1.

Mr. Sahoo, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, impugned is order dated 30th June, 2023. He draws attention to the table under paragraph-2.2 in impugned order. In it, there is indication that his client had not filed Form ST-3, in respect of gross receipts for financial year 2015-16 and hence, there was adjudication of service tax payable at Rs.1,45,44,167/-.

2.

He submits, at page-38 stands disclosed Form ST-3 filed by his client on 20th April, 2016 indicating therein that it is a service provider under section 68(1) of Finance Act, 1994 but not a service receiver under section 68(2). Hence, impugned order is on the face of it bad.

// 2 //

He explains, the part for which his client is liable to pay tax was disclosed in the form, but not noticed by the authority.

3.

Mr. Kedia, learned advocate, Junior Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the department and submits, inspite of notice issued none appeared to represent petitioner in the adjudication. Furthermore, petitioner has available alternative statutory remedy. Mr. Sahoo respond, the notices were sent to the chartered accountant and there was omission and communication gap.

4.

It appears there was indication in the return filed by petitioner of it being a service provider under section 68(1) and the amount of service tax to be paid. This was not noticed in the adjudication. In the circumstances, there appears to be error on the face.

5.

Impugned order is set aside and quashed. The adjudication is restored to the authority. On notice duly being issued to petitioner, the adjudication will proceed afresh. In event petitioner does not respond, the authority will adjudicate on scrutiny of materials on record.

6.

The writ petition is disposed of. (Arindam Sinha)

Judge

(S.S. Mishra)

Judge Sks

Reproduced from the public record of the Orissa High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.