Subash Chandra Mohanty vs. State Of Odisha
Facts
The Petitioner, Subash Chandra Mohanty, filed multiple writ petitions before the Orissa High Court challenging an order dated 16th September, 2019, which cancelled his GST registration. He also sought a direction for the Executive Engineer (Opposite Party No.3) to reimburse the additional tax burden incurred post-GST implementation. During the proceedings, the Petitioner's counsel informed the Court that the Petitioner wished to withdraw the prayer to quash the cancellation order and instead sought liberty to file an appeal. The Petitioner also stated his intention to deposit the entire amount of GST reimbursement received from Opposite Party No.3 with the appellate authority at the time of filing the appeal.
Held
The Court allowed the Petitioner to withdraw his prayer to quash the order cancelling his GST registration, with liberty to file an appeal in accordance with law. The Court directed that if the appeals are filed not later than 15th March, 2022, along with the amounts already received by the Petitioner as reimbursement of GST from Opposite Party No.3, and if any application for interim protection is filed, the appellate authority shall consider the same in accordance with law. The Court further directed that any explanation offered by the Petitioner for the delay in filing the appeals, on account of the pendency of the writ petitions, will be taken into account by the appellate authority. The Court disposed of the writ petitions in these terms.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Petitioner should be granted liberty to withdraw his prayer to quash the order cancelling his GST registration and be permitted to file an appeal before the appellate authority? 2. Whether the Petitioner should be directed to deposit the entire amount of GST reimbursement received from Opposite Party No.3 with the appellate authority at the time of filing the appeal? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner sought to withdraw the prayer to quash the cancellation order and requested liberty to file an appeal. He also agreed to deposit the reimbursement amount received from Opposite Party No.3 with the appellate authority. The Petitioner also sought consideration for any delay in filing the appeal due to the pendency of the writ petitions. Revenue/State's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the Opposite Parties (State of Odisha and Others).
Sections Cited
Not specified
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER 01.02.2022 02. 1. These matters are taken up by video conferencing mode.
In all these writ petitions, the background facts are similar and the prayers are also more or less similar. Accordingly they are being disposed of by this common order.
The two-fold reliefs sought are as under:
(1) quashing an order dated 16th September, 2019 cancelling the Petitioner’s registration under the GST law; and (2) a direction to the Executive Engineer (Opposite Party No.3) to reimburse the additional tax burden suffered by the Petitioner after coming into force of the GST Rule.
As far as the first prayer is concerned, it is stated by Mr. Dalai, learned counsel that the Petitioner in each of the case seeks
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Orissa High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.