Balakrushna Mohanty vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to appear before the Sales Tax Officer, CT & GST Circle, Puri. The petitioner is to file their objection, detailing the records already produced before the DGGI (Opposite Party No.5), and raise all other relevant arguments. The Sales Tax Officer is directed to consider these objections and arguments in accordance with the law. The Court did not explicitly set aside the summons but allowed the petitioner to address the concerns raised by the Sales Tax Officer through a formal objection and appearance. The specific finding on the validity of the summons, given the prior appearance before the DGGI, was not definitively stated, but the liberty granted implies the Court acknowledged the petitioner's right to present their case and evidence.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging orders issued by the Sales Tax Officer, CT & GST Circle, Puri. These orders, dated 19.11.2020 and 04.12.2020, summoned the petitioner to appear and produce records to ascertain discrepancies in purchase and sales turnover for the period 01.04.2014 to 30.06.2017, as disclosed in returns filed under the OVAT Act, 2004. The petitioner argued that they had already appeared before the Senior Intelligence Officer of the Director General of Goods and Tax Intelligence (DGGI), Bhubaneswar, and produced all relevant records, rendering the current summons redundant. The revenue, represented by learned Standing Counsel, contended that the period for which the Sales Tax Officer issued notice differed from the period covered by the DGGI's notice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the summons dated 19.11.2020 and 04.12.2020 issued by the Sales Tax Officer, CT & GST Circle, Puri, are liable to be set aside, considering the petitioner had already appeared before the DGGI and produced relevant records for a potentially overlapping period? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that since all relevant records were already furnished to the DGGI, the summons from the Sales Tax Officer were unnecessary and should be quashed. They relied on their prior appearance and submission of documents to the DGGI. Revenue's Contention: The State-Opposite Party (represented by Mr. P.K. Muduli, AGA) and Opposite Parties 3 to 6 (represented by Mr. R. Chimanka, SCS) argued that the period of inquiry by the Sales Tax Officer was distinct from the period investigated by the DGGI, implying that the summons were for a separate and valid purpose.