BharatTaxGST

M/S. Merlin Min Movers, Keonjhar vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs,New Delhi

Original PDF →
WP(C)/3319/2025HC OrissaGSTCNR ODHC01007148202514 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.3319 of 2025 M/s. Merlin Min Movers, Keonjhar …. Petitioner Represented by Adv.– Mrs. Kananbala Roy Choudhury, Advocate -Versus- Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC) and others …. Opposite Parties Represented by Adv.– Mr. A. Kedia, Advocate (Junior Standing Counsel) Mr. Sunil Mishra, Advocate (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 14.02.2025 01. 1. Mrs. Roy Choudhury, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, order dated 7th August, 2024 made under section 73 in Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is under challenge. She demonstrates from preceding notice that in the column of personal hearing it carried remark NA.

2.

She draws attention to impugned order to submit, the authority passed the order ex parte. It appears therefrom, it was made on surmise and conjecture.

3.

Mr. Kedia, learned advocate, Junior Standing Counsel appears on behalf of Central revenue and Mr. Mishra, learned advocate, Standing Counsel, for State revenue. Mr. Mishra submits, the proceeding was initiated under section 73 pursuant to audit. Petitioner did not file reply to the notice by Form DRC-01. In the circumstances, there was no occasion to call for personal hearing. The information with the authority was relied upon to duly make impugned order. There should not be interference.

4.

While we accept the authority proceeding initially in issuing the notice indicating that personal hearing is not applicable, our acceptance is on premise that a person liable to pay tax will reply to the notice and seek personal hearing to support statements made in defence. Where no reply is supported, the authority proceeds on presumption that there is no defence. However, from impugned order there is indication that there may be necessity for adding, amending, deleting or modifying it. As such, we would want there be opportunity given of personal hearing to petitioner.

5.

Impugned order is set aside. Petitioner will communicate certified copy of this order to opposite party no.3 by 3rd March,

2025, to obtain date of personal hearing. Omission to communicate as directed will automatically restore impugned order.

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.