M/S K.Bheemaraju And Son, Muniguda vs. The Special Secy. TO Govt. Of Odisha

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s. K. Bheemaraju & Sons, sought to quash an order dated October 26, 2021, by the Sales Tax Officer, CT & GST Assessment Unit, Gunpur Circle. This order declined the Petitioner's application, also dated October 26, 2021, for a certified copy of a vigilance report. The Petitioner was an assessee under the OVAT Act, 2004. It was conceded that a revision petition against the denial of the certified copy was pending before the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax and GST, Koraput Range. Furthermore, an assessment order dated October 24, 2017, for suppression of sales between April 1, 2009, and February 8, 2016, had attained finality as no appeal was filed within the prescribed time. A tax recovery notice based on this assessment order was previously upheld by the High Court.

Held

The Court noted that the Petitioner had already filed a revision petition before the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax and GST against the denial of the certified copy of the vigilance report, and this revision was pending. The Court also observed that the Petitioner had recourse to the Right to Information Act. Given that the Petitioner had alternative remedies available and was already pursuing one, the Court did not delve into the merits of whether the Petitioner was entitled to the vigilance report. The Petitioner's counsel then sought permission to withdraw the writ petition to pursue their remedies in accordance with law. The Court granted this permission. The assessment order and the tax recovery notice were not directly under challenge in this writ petition, but their finality was noted as a background fact.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a certified copy of the vigilance report, and if so, under which provision of law? 2. Whether the Petitioner has exhausted all available alternative remedies regarding the denial of the vigilance report? The Petitioner argued that they are entitled to the vigilance report as it is crucial for their case and that the denial by the Sales Tax Officer was arbitrary. They contended that the Right to Information Act is a separate remedy and should not preclude them from obtaining the document through the GST authorities. The Revenue, through the Opposite Parties, contended that the Petitioner had already filed a revision petition against the denial, which was pending, and therefore, the writ petition was premature. They also highlighted that the Petitioner had other avenues, including the Right to Information Act, to obtain the report. The Revenue also pointed out that the assessment order had attained finality and was not under challenge.