Oripol Industries LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The Petitioner, Oripol Industries Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack. The Petitioner had previously been directed by a letter dated January 20, 2020, from the Director, GST Council Secretariat, to approach the Nodal Officer (Opposite Party No. 3). However, on February 6, 2020, the Petitioner instead made a representation to the Superintendent, Central GST & Central Excise, Range-II, Balasore. The Opposite Parties are the Union of India and others, including the Nodal Officer.

Held

The Court noted that the Petitioner did not approach the Nodal Officer as directed by the letter dated January 20, 2020. Instead, the Petitioner wrote to the Superintendent, Central GST & Central Excise. The Court did not delve into the merits of the Petitioner's grievance or the correctness of the Superintendent's response, if any. The Court's decision was procedural. It directed the Petitioner to make a fresh representation to the Nodal Officer (Opposite Party No. 3) by September 13, 2021. The Nodal Officer was then directed to pass an appropriate order on this representation not later than two months thereafter. The Court found no further directions necessary at that stage. The ratio is that procedural rectitude, as directed by administrative authorities, must be followed, and deviations may necessitate a return to the prescribed path.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner correctly followed the procedural directions issued by the GST Council Secretariat by approaching the Superintendent, Central GST & Central Excise, instead of the designated Nodal Officer. This issue turns on the interpretation and application of the directive contained in the letter dated January 20, 2020, from the Director, GST Council Secretariat. The Petitioner's contention, implicitly, is that their action was a reasonable attempt to address their grievance, even if not strictly to the specified authority. The Revenue's contention, implied by the Court's order, is that the Petitioner failed to adhere to the prescribed procedure by not approaching the Nodal Officer.