M/S Bharat Heavy Electricals LTD., New Delhi vs. State Of Odisha
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER 21.08.2023
Order No. 1 This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Heard Mr. A.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for CT & GST Department.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 04.03.2023 Annexure-1, which has been passed by opposite party no.3-Addl. Commissioner CT & GST, Territorial Range, Angul in exercise of Suo Mottu Revision Poswer under Section-79(1) of the OVAT Act, 2004 read with Rule-119 of the OVAT Rules, 2005. 4. Mr. A.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the case of the petitioner is covered by the ratio decided by this Court in M/s. Maharana Supply & Co., Kotsahi, Tangi v. State of Odisha and Others & Batch [W.P.(C) No.11311 of 2019 and batch disposed of on 20.12.2022], in which one of us (Mr. M.S. Raman, J.) was a Member. It is 2
contended that the case of the petitioner may be considered in terms of the said judgment.
Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for CT & GST Department, while disputing the contentions raised by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the judgment rendered in M/s. Maharana Supply & Co., Kotsahi, Tangi (supra) is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. Rather, the petitioner has alternative remedy under Sub-Section-7(b) of Section-79 of the OVAT Act, 2004. Instead of approaching the authority, the petitioner has approached this Court directly by filing this writ petition.
Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that in the cases of M/s. Maharana Supply & Co., Kotsahi, Tangi (supra) and M/s. R.P. Industry v. The Sales Tax Officer, Sambalpur and Others (W.P.(C) No.11149 of 2019, disposed of on 09.05.2023), on which reliance has been placed, the notification issued by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Odisha dated 05.06.2018, which was not published in the official gazette, was under challenge. The authority, who has passed the order, has lacked juri iction. Therefore, the said notification cannot have any application to the present case. If reliance has been placed on the notification dated 05.08.2018, in that case against the order passed by the Addl. Commissioner CT & GST, Territorial Range, Angul under Sub-Section-1 of Section-79 of the OVAT Act, 2004, an appeal lies under Sub-Section-7(b) of Section-79 of the OVAT Act. Thereby, the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner is 3
covered by the ratio decided by this Court in M/s. Maharana Supply & Co., Kotsahi, Tangi and M/s. R.P. Industry (supra) is not applicable to the petitioner. However, since the order dated 04.03.2023 passed by opposite party no.3-Additional Commissioner CT & GST, Territorial Range, Angul is appealable, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law. Needless to say, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Alok
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
(M.S. RAMAN)
JUDGE
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.