M/S.Good Luck Traders vs. State Of Odisha

Held

The Court held that it would not be appropriate to exercise the powers conferred under Public Interest Litigation in this case, as the petitioner themselves appeared to be involved in tax evasion, as indicated by the report dated August 21, 2018. The Court did not decide on the merits of the report or the allegations of tax evasion. Instead, it provided an alternative recourse for the petitioner. The Court directed that if the petitioner approaches the Chief Secretary, Odisha, with a detailed representation within four weeks, the Chief Secretary shall dispose of the representation in accordance with the law within six weeks of its receipt and take appropriate action against tax evasion. The Court explicitly left undecided the substantive issues of tax evasion and the validity of the report.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash a report submitted by the Special Commissioner of CT & GST (Revenue) to the Commissioner of CT & GST, Odisha, dated August 21, 2018. The petitioner also prayed for a direction to refer the matter concerning their revised return dated November 28, 2013, and related cases of M/s. Shivom Minerals Limited and others to the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate alleged white-collar crimes causing losses to the State Government. The Court noted that the petitioner appeared to be involved in tax evasion, making it inappropriate to exercise public interest litigation powers. The Court suggested the petitioner approach the Chief Secretary if the submitted report was not acted upon by the State authorities.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should exercise its powers under Public Interest Litigation to quash the report of the Committee submitted by the Special Commissioner of CT & GST (Revenue) and direct a CBI investigation, given the petitioner's alleged involvement in tax evasion. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner sought to quash the report and initiate a CBI investigation into alleged tax evasion and white-collar crimes causing losses to the State Government. The specific provisions of law or precedents relied upon by the petitioner are not explicitly recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or State authorities. However, the Court's observation implies that the revenue's position, as reflected in the report, indicated the petitioner's involvement in tax evasion.