BharatTaxGST

M/S. Orissa Stevedores LTD., Cuttack vs. Supdt., (Adjudication), CGST Bbsr

Original PDF →
WP(C)/14465/2024HC OrissaGSTCNR ODHC01038075202423 October 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA,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.14465 of 2024 M/s. Orissa Stevedores Ltd., Cuttack …. Petitioner Represented By Adv. – Mr. Jagabandhu Sahoo, Senior Advocate -versus- Superintendent (Adjudication), CGST, Central Excise and Customs, Bhubaneswar and others …. Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr. R. Chimanka, Senior Standing Counsel CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO Order No.

ORDER 23.10.2024

03.

1. Mr. Sahoo, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and draws attention to earlier order dated 26th July, 2024. Paragraphs 1 and 4 from said order are reproduced below.

“1. Mr. Sahoo, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, pursuant to purported demand notice dated 21st March, 2012, the proceeding is

// 2 //

sought to be resumed currently. It is a dead case and therefore we should interfere.

xxx xxx

xxx xxx

xxx xxx

4.

Interim application will be considered along with the writ petition since allegation is, the proceeding is sought to be resumed after long delay.”

2.

He hands up memo of date. Attached thereto is order dated 19th August, 2024. He submits, the proceeding belatedly resumed has culminated in the order made disposing of it on dropping demand of ₹44,18,700/-, leaving balance of ₹9,35,354/-. He reiterates, the proceeding was barred by limitation.

3.

Mr. Sahoo submits further, the balance demand, purportedly confirmed by said order dated 19th August, 2024, was subject matter of a proceeding the authority had dropped earlier. As such there is also error apparent in said order. For the purpose his client has applied for rectification. He reiterates, the proceeding was barred by limitation and the rectification has been filed without prejudice to such contention.

4.

Mr. Chimanka, learned advocate, Senior Standing Counsel appears on behalf of revenue.

// 3 //

5.

Considering petitioner has, in the circumstances, filed for rectification, we are not inclined to make any further order in the writ petition. It is accordingly disposed of.

(Arindam Sinha)

Judge

(M.S. Sahoo)

Judge Sks

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.