M/S. Baishnab Charan Nayak vs. State Of Odisha
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Baishnab Charan Nayak, filed an OVTA (Original Valuation Tax Appeal) No. 2 of 2022 before the Orissa High Court. The appeal was against an order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax, Territorial Range, Cuttack-II, Cuttack. The petitioner had previously filed a Revision Case No. JSP-49/V/2018-19 before the Commissioner, CT & GST, Odisha, challenging the Joint Commissioner's order. The State contended that the petitioner's filing before the Commissioner should have been an 'appeal' and not a 'revision', and consequently, the present OVTA before the High Court should have been a 'writ petition' instead of an 'OVTA'. The tax period and the amount in dispute are not specified in the judgment.
Held
The Court held that the nomenclature of the present proceeding as 'OVTA' was not appropriate. The Revenue's contention that the petitioner's prior filing before the Commissioner should have been an 'appeal' and that the present challenge to the appellate authority's order should have been a 'writ petition' was accepted. The Court reasoned that the procedural correctness of the filing was paramount. Therefore, the Court disposed of the OVTA. The operative direction was to permit the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition with better particulars, rectifying the procedural defect in the filing.
Key Issues
1. Whether the nomenclature of the present proceeding before the High Court as 'OVTA' is appropriate, or if it should have been a 'writ petition', considering the nature of the challenge to an order passed by an appellate authority. The Petitioner's side did not present any arguments regarding the nomenclature of the proceeding. The Revenue (State of Odisha & Others) contended that the petitioner's prior filing before the Commissioner, CT & GST, Odisha, was incorrectly termed a 'revision' and should have been an 'appeal'. Based on this, the Revenue argued that the current proceeding before the High Court, challenging the appellate authority's order, should have been filed as a 'writ petition' rather than an 'OVTA'.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER 16.03.2023 Order No. 02
This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Heard Mr. S. Dwibedi, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the CT & GST Department.
Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the CT & GST Department contended that though the Petitioner filed Revision Case No.JSP-49/V/2018-19 before the Commissioner, CT & GST, Odisha, but effectively the nomenclature should have been “appeal”, as it was filed against the suo-motu revision order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax, Territorial Range, Cuttack-II, Cuttack. Since the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the appellate authority, the nomenclature of this case should have been ‘writ petition’ instead of ‘OVTA’.
In view of the above, this Court disposes of this OVTA permitting the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition with better particulars.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
Alok/Laxmikant
(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.