Sanjukta Sahoo vs. The Addl. CT And GST Officer, Cuttack Ii
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sanjukta Sahoo, approached the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack through a writ petition. The petitioner argued that her case was covered by a previous order of the Court dated February 9, 2023, in the case of Priyadarshini Jena v. The Additional CT & GST Officer. The petitioner sought a direction for her case to be considered in light of this prior order. The Opposite Parties, represented by the CT & GST Department, disputed this contention. They argued that the petitioner's case was, in fact, covered by the ratio decided by the same High Court in the case of M/s. Durga Raman Patnaik v. Additional Commissioner of GST (Appeals), decided on October 13, 2022.
Held
The Court considered the contentions of both parties and examined the records. It found that factually, the case of the petitioner, Sanjukta Sahoo, was covered by the ratio decided by the Court in the case of M/s. Durga Raman Patnaik v. Additional Commissioner of GST (Appeals) (W.P.(C) NO.7728 of 2022, decided on 13.10.2022). Consequently, the Court held that the writ petition should be disposed of in terms of the judgment passed in M/s. Durga Raman Patnaik. This decision was reached as agreed upon by the learned counsel for both parties. No specific amount in dispute or tax periods were mentioned in the judgment.
Key Issues
1. Whether the case of the petitioner, Sanjukta Sahoo, is covered by the order dated 09.02.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.3134 of 2023 (Priyadarshini Jena v. The Additional CT & GST Officer, Mayurbhanj & Others)? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner's case is factually identical to the Priyadarshini Jena case, and therefore, the Court should issue directions for her case to be considered in light of that order. Revenue's contention: The petitioner's case is not covered by the Priyadarshini Jena order. Instead, it is covered by the ratio decided by this Court in M/s. Durga Raman Patnaik v. Additional Commissioner of GST (Appeals) (W.P.(C) NO.7728 of 2022, decided on 13.10.2022).
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER 16.03.2023 Order No. 01
This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the CT & GST Department.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the case of the petitioner is covered by the order dated 09.02.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.3134 of 2023 (Priyadarshini Jena v. The Additional CT & GST Officer, Mayurbhanj & Others). Therefore, it is contended that direction may be issued to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the order dated 09.02.2023 passed by this Court in Priyadarshini Jena (supra).
Mr. S. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the CT & GST Department disputes the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and contends that the case of the petitioner is covered by the ratio decided by this Court in M/s. Durga Raman Patnaik v. Additional Commissioner of GST (Appeals) (First Appellate Authority), Bhubaneswar
Arun/Aks
(W.P.(C) NO.7728 of 2022, decided on 13.10.2022).
Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that factually the case of the petitioner is covered by the ratio decided by this Court in M/s. Durga Raman Patnaik (supra). Therefore, this writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in M/s. Durga Raman Patnaik (supra), as agreed upon by learned counsel for the parties.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(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.