M/S.Acc LTD Bargarh Cement Works vs. Commissioner Of Sales Tax CT And GST

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable at the stage of a show cause notice, as the Assessing Authority had not yet passed a final order. The Court reasoned that it was not inclined to entertain a writ petition filed against an impugned show cause notice when the assessment proceedings were still ongoing. Therefore, the Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Assessing Authority to consider all objections raised by the petitioner while passing the appropriate order. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts generally do not interfere at the show cause notice stage in tax matters, preferring to allow the statutory authorities to complete their proceedings and pass a final order, which can then be challenged.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated 03.11.2020, issued by the Assessing Authority, CT & GST Circle, Baragarh. The notice proposed to impose a penalty equal to twice the amount of assessed tax under Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Orissa Entry Tax Act, 1999. The petitioner had submitted objections to the Assessing Authority and relied on a previous judgment of the High Court in Kalinga Ispat Udyog vs. Sales Tax Officer & Anr. The revenue contended that the cited judgment was not applicable and had already been considered during the objection stage. The High Court noted that the petition was filed at the notice stage, before any assessment order was passed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable at the stage of a show cause notice when the Assessing Authority has yet to pass an assessment order? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the notice was flawed and sought to rely on the High Court's judgment in Kalinga Ispat Udyog vs. Sales Tax Officer & Anr. to support their case. Revenue's Argument: The revenue contended that the judgment relied upon by the petitioner was not applicable to the present case and had already been considered in response to the petitioner's objections. The revenue did not explicitly argue for the dismissal of the writ petition on maintainability grounds but implied it by stating the judgment's inapplicability.