Madhusmita Baral vs. CT And GST Officer,Jajpur Circle
Held
The Court held that a writ petition cannot be entertained against a mere notice. The petitioner was directed to file a reply to the impugned notice and, in doing so, to demand the details of the discrepancies from the opposite parties. The Court stated that if such an application is filed by the petitioner, it shall be considered by the opposite parties as per law, and an appropriate order will be passed. The Court did not decide on the merits of the alleged discrepancies or the validity of the notice itself, as the primary issue was the procedural stage of the matter. The ratio is that statutory authorities must be given an opportunity to act in accordance with law, and parties should exhaust available remedies before approaching the High Court via writ.
Facts
The petitioner, Madhusmita Baral, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 30.12.2019 issued by the CT & GST Officer, Jajpur Circle, Jajpur. The notice directed the petitioner to explain discrepancies found during the scrutiny of her return for the financial year 2017-2018. The petitioner's primary contention was that the notice mentioned attached annexures detailing the discrepancies, but these annexures were not provided to her. Consequently, she was unable to understand or address the alleged discrepancies and approached the High Court.
Key Issues
1. Whether a writ petition is maintainable against a notice that allegedly lacks necessary supporting documents (annexures) detailing discrepancies found during tax return scrutiny, thereby preventing the petitioner from providing a proper explanation? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice was flawed because it referred to annexures detailing discrepancies but failed to provide these annexures. This omission rendered the notice incapable of being responded to effectively, justifying the invocation of writ jurisdiction. Revenue/State's argument: The opposite parties did not present any specific arguments in the judgment regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or the issue of missing annexures. The Court's direction implies that the petitioner should first seek the missing details from the authorities.
Sections Cited
None explicitly discussed or named in the judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the parties by Video Conferencing mode.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- Madhusmita Baral challenging the notice dated 30.12.2019 (Annexure-1) issued by the CT & GST Officer, Jajpur Circle, Jajpur-opposite party no.1, whereby directing the petitioner to explain the reasons for certain discrepancies mentioned in the attached annexures, which were found during scrutiny of the return for the tax period for the financial year 2017-2018. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notice intimating discrepancies in the return after scrutiny, which were mentioned in the attached annexures, whereas no annexures have been received by the petitioner with such impugned notice and therefore the petitioner has chosen to approach this Court by way of this writ petition.
The wri
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Orissa High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.