BharatTaxGST

Dr.Surendra Kumar Satapathy vs. Chief Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise And Customs , Odisha

Original PDF →
WP(C)/3429/2025HC OrissaGSTCNR ODHC01007377202513 February 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA (ACJ),MR. JUSTICE M.S.SAHOO3 pages

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Page 1 of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.3429 of 2025 Dr. Surendra Kumar Satapathy …. Petitioner Represented by Adv.– Mr. Diganta Das, Advocate -Versus- Chief Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise and Customs, Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Represented by Adv.– Mr. A. Kedia, Advocate (Junior Standing Counsel) CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO Order No.

ORDER 13.02.2025 01. 1. Mr. Das, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client is a medical practitioner. He had registration granted on 2nd May, 1972 by Odisha Council of Medical Registration, Bhubaneswar. He suffered issuance of two notices against him for financial years 2015-16 and 2016-17. The proceeding under second notice was soon dropped. However, proceeding under first notice terminated in a demand. His client

preferred appeal. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 31st December, 2024 on alleged omission to pre-deposit. He points out from page-53 that the pre-deposit was made.

2.

Mr. Das submits, also impugned order-in-original dated 28th June, 2024 carries perverse finding of his client’s registration certificate having period of validity from 8th November, 2018 to 7th November, 2023. The certificate is in respect of his client’s diagnostic centre. He seeks interference.

3.

Mr. Kedia, learned advocate, Junior Standing Counsel appears on behalf of revenue and submits, petitioner himself submitted the registration certificate in respect of his diagnostic centre. As such, the order-in-original was made on basis of it. There was omission by petitioner to disclose his registration certificate, disclosed in the writ petition at page-17. Mr. Das submits, his client’s registration certificate obtained on 2nd May, 1972 was considered in the other proceeding, dropped.

4.

There appears to be mistake of omission on part of petitioner, in not having disclosed his registration certificate, to show he was a registered medical practitioner on and from 2nd May, 1972. We see obvious reason being that it already stood

disclosed in the other proceeding, both of which were launched almost simultaneously. Hence, it is understandable that petitioner presumed the information was with revenue.

5.

Impugned order in original is set aside and quashed. As such, it matters little that appeal therefrom was dismissed on ground of omission to put in pre-deposit. Petitioner is entitled to refund of the pre-deposit. He will duly apply for it and has liberty to produce certified copy of this order in support of his application.

6.

The writ petition is disposed of.

(Arindam Sinha) Acting Chief Justice

(M.S. Sahoo) Judge

S. Behera

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.