M/S.Kalinga Commercial Corporation LTD. vs. Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes Cum Goods And Service Tax

Facts

The Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order dated September 24, 2019, passed by the Joint Commissioner, CT & GST Circle, Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No. 2). The Petitioner also prayed for a direction to the Opposite Parties to consider their refund application in accordance with law. The Petitioner contended that their refund application was not properly considered, and the impugned order relied solely on an audit report without applying independent mind. The revenue argued that the impugned order was passed based on the audit report and therefore, no illegality was committed.

Held

The Court held that the order dated September 24, 2019, passed by the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax, CT & GST Circle, Bhubaneswar, is not sustainable in law. The Court found that the Joint Commissioner had apparently not applied his mind to the refund application, as he relied solely on the report of the audit officer without delving into the merits of the case. Furthermore, the order did not provide any reasons for rejecting the refund application. The Court also noted that the Joint Commissioner had not followed the procedure envisaged under Sub-Section 4 of Section 58 of the OVAT Act, 2004, and Rule 66 of the OVAT Rules, 2005. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed. The matter was remitted back to the Joint Commissioner to consider and dispose of the refund application by following the due procedure of law expeditiously.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated September 24, 2019, passed by the Joint Commissioner, CT & GST Circle, Bhubaneswar, is sustainable in law, considering it relies on an audit report without independent application of mind? (Question of law) Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the Joint Commissioner failed to apply his mind to the refund application and mechanically relied on the audit report, rendering the order unsustainable. They contended that the Joint Commissioner has the power to consider refunds and should have done so properly. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that the impugned order was passed based on the audit officer's report, and thus, no illegality or irregularity was committed by the authority, warranting interference by the Court.