M/S.The Executive Engineer Electrical Store Division Wesco Utility vs. State Of Odisha

Held

The Court held that there was no good reason to entertain the arguments on merits, particularly regarding the validity of Section 54(6) of the OVAT Act, given that the impugned order was revisable by the Commissioner under Section 79(2) of the OVAT Act. Therefore, the Court relegated the petitioner to the revisional authority. The Court directed that if the petitioner files a revision within 15 days, it shall be entertained, ignoring the delay. The revisional authority was instructed to decide the revision on its own merits and in accordance with law, allowing the petitioner to agitate all arguments, including those related to the delay in passing the penalty order. The revisional authority was also directed to make an endeavor to decide the revision expeditiously. The issue of the constitutional validity of Section 54(6) of the OVAT Act was not decided on merits.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. The Executive Engineer, Electrical Store Division, WESCO, Burla, filed a writ petition challenging an order of penalty dated 30.07.2020, passed by the Sales Tax Officer, CT & GST Circle-II, Sambalpur. The penalty imposed was Rs. 7,26,648.00 under Section 54(6) of the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (OVAT Act). The petitioner also challenged the constitutional validity of Section 54(6) of the OVAT Act. The Revenue Department raised an objection that the impugned order is revisable by the Commissioner under Section 79(2) of the OVAT Act. The Court did not entertain the writ petition on merits, opting to relegate the petitioner to the revisional authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable on merits, considering the availability of a statutory remedy of revision under Section 79(2) of the OVAT Act? 2. Whether the constitutional validity of Section 54(6) of the OVAT Act can be examined in the present writ petition? Contentions of the Petitioner: The petitioner challenged the order of penalty and the vires of Section 54(6) of the OVAT Act. They also raised concerns about potential limitation issues if they were to file a revision. Contentions of the Revenue/State: The Revenue Department contended that the impugned order is revisable by the Commissioner under Section 79(2) of the OVAT Act, implying that the writ petition should not be entertained on merits.