State Of Odisha vs. Dhansingh Rout

Facts

The petitioner, Swapnajit Mohanty, filed a writ petition challenging an order of assessment. The assessment order was passed due to discrepancies found in the returns filed by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that they should have been allowed to rectify the mistakes in their returns, citing a previous order by the High Court in a similar case (M/s. Y.B. Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.). The Opposite Parties, the Commissioner of CT & GST, Odisha, and another authority, were represented by the learned Additional Standing Counsel. The tax period(s) and the specific amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history involves the petitioner filing a writ petition directly before the High Court instead of pursuing the appellate remedy.

Held

The Court did not entertain the writ petition directly. While acknowledging the petitioner's contentions, the Court found that the impugned order was appealable. Therefore, the Court declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction. However, to provide relief, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the appellate authority. The Court directed that if such an application is filed, the appellate authority shall consider the petitioner's contentions and pass an appropriate order, taking into account the previous judgment of the High Court in M/s. Y.B. Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar. The Court's reasoning was based on the availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal. The specific finding on the merits of the discrepancies or the petitioner's right to rectification was not decided by the High Court in this writ proceeding.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should have been permitted to rectify discrepancies in their GST returns before an assessment order was passed, considering the principles laid down in the case of M/s. Y.B. Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.? (Question of law) Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that if there were disputes regarding the submission of returns, their case was covered by the High Court's order in M/s. Y.B. Constructions Pvt. Ltd., and they should have been allowed to rectify the mistakes. They contended that the assessment order was passed without affording this opportunity. Revenue's Contention: The Opposite Parties (C.T. & G.S.T. Department) contended that the order impugned was appealable, and therefore, the High Court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.