Sibasish Nath vs. The Addl. CT And GST Officer, Mayurbhanj

Facts

The petitioner, Sibasis Nath, filed a writ petition before the Orissa High Court challenging an action or order passed by the Additional CT & GST Officer, Mayurbhanj Circle, Baripada. The petitioner contended that their case was covered by a previous order of the High Court in the case of Priyadarshini Jena v. The Additional CT & GST Officer, Mayurbhanj & Others, dated 09.02.2023. The Opposite Parties, represented by the Additional Standing Counsel for the CT & GST Department, disputed this and argued that the petitioner's case was covered by the ratio decided in M/s. Durga Raman Patnaik v. Additional Commissioner of GST (Appeals) (First Appellate Authority), Bhubaneswar (W.P.(C) NO.7728 of 2022, decided on 13.10.2022). The specific tax period and amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment.

Held

The Court found that factually, the case of the petitioner was covered by the ratio decided in M/s. Durga Raman Patnaik v. Additional Commissioner of GST (Appeals) (First Appellate Authority), Bhubaneswar (W.P.(C) NO.7728 of 2022). Consequently, the writ petition was 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. The Court did not explicitly state the reasoning behind why the petitioner's case was factually covered by the Durga Raman Patnaik judgment over the Priyadarshini Jena judgment, but rather accepted the contention of the revenue and the agreement of the parties. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the cited precedent.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's case is covered by the ratio decided by this Court in Priyadarshini Jena v. The Additional CT & GST Officer, Mayurbhanj & Others (W.P.(C) No.3134 of 2023). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that their case is factually identical to the case of Priyadarshini Jena and therefore, the Court should issue directions to consider their case in light of that judgment. Revenue's contention: The Opposite Parties contended that the petitioner's case is not covered by the Priyadarshini Jena judgment, but rather by the ratio decided in M/s. Durga Raman Patnaik v. Additional Commissioner of GST (Appeals) (First Appellate Authority), Bhubaneswar (W.P.(C) NO.7728 of 2022).