G. M. Iron And Steel Co. LTD. vs. State Of Odisha

Facts

The Petitioner, G.M. Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack. The Petitioner's appeal petition concerning GST matters was pending before the Additional Commissioner of CT & GST (Appeal), Balasore Range, Balasore. The papers for the appeal had been transferred from the Rourkela Range to the Balasore Range. The Opposite Parties, represented by the State of Odisha and others through Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for CT & GST, submitted a communication dated 8th February, 2023, from the Joint Commissioner of CT & GST (Law). This communication indicated that the appeal documents were yet to be physically received by the Balasore Range, but assured that the Petitioner would be informed of the hearing date at least one week in advance.

Held

The Court took on record the communication dated 8th February, 2023, from the Joint Commissioner of CT & GST (Law). This communication assured that the Additional Commissioner of CT & GST (Appeal), Balasore Range, Balasore, would inform the Petitioner at least one week in advance of the actual date of hearing of their appeal. Furthermore, the communication stated that the appeal would be decided in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of the hearing. The Court explicitly clarified that it had not expressed any view on the merits of the case. Consequently, the Court found no further directions to be called for at that stage and disposed of the petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should intervene in the pending appellate proceedings before the Additional Commissioner of CT & GST (Appeal), Balasore Range, Balasore, given the assurance of expeditious disposal. The Petitioner, through Mr. Jagabandhu Sahoo, Senior Advocate, likely sought a direction for the timely and fair disposal of their appeal. The Revenue, represented by Mr. Sunil Mishra, ASC, relied on the communication from the Joint Commissioner of CT & GST (Law) to demonstrate that the appellate authority was seized of the matter and intended to proceed with it expeditiously. The Revenue's stance was that the appellate process was underway and the High Court's intervention was not necessary at this stage, especially as the Court had not expressed any view on the merits of the case.