M/S Jai Baba Sales vs. The Sales Tax Officer,Sambalpur I

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Jai Baba Sales, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack challenging certain notices and orders. The specific tax period(s) and the authority that passed the impugned orders are not explicitly detailed in the provided text. The amount in dispute is also not mentioned. The procedural history leading to this writ petition is not elaborated upon, other than the fact that the petitioner approached the High Court. The core of the matter revolves around the validity of these notices and orders.

Held

The High Court of Orissa at Cuttack quashed the impugned notices and orders. The Court's decision was based on its own judgment dated 1st December, 2021 in SREV No.64 of 2016 (M/s. Keshab Automobiles v. State of Odisha), which had subsequently been upheld by the Supreme Court of India on 13th July, 2022, in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.9912 of 2022 (Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. M/s. Rathi Steel and Power Limited). The ratio decidendi is that if the impugned action is found to be contrary to established legal precedents, particularly those upheld by the Supreme Court, such actions must be set aside. The Court found that the principles established in the cited cases were directly applicable to the present writ petition, rendering the notices and orders unsustainable. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of, granting relief to the petitioner by quashing the challenged orders.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned notices and orders are liable to be quashed in light of the judgment of this Court dated 1st December, 2021 in SREV No.64 of 2016 (M/s. Keshab Automobiles v. State of Odisha), which has been upheld by the Supreme Court of India by order dated 13th July, 2022 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.9912 of 2022 (Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. M/s. Rathi Steel and Power Limited)? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner, through their counsel, relied on the aforementioned judgments of the High Court and the Supreme Court. It is implied that the petitioner argued that the impugned notices and orders were unsustainable based on the principles laid down in these precedents. Revenue's Contention: The Opposite Parties, represented by the ASC for CT & GST Organization, did not record any specific arguments in the provided text. However, their presence indicates they were defending the impugned notices and orders.