Mahendra Kumar Sahoo vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs (CBIC), New Delhi

Mr. Kar, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner submits, for tax period financial year 2017-18, impugned order dated 15th December, 2023 was made under section 73 of Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Allegation was, Input Tax Credit (ITC) mismatch. He demonstrates, there was another order dated 27th December, 2023 made for the period in respect of, inter alia, also ITC mismatch. By order dated 19th December, 2024 made in W.P.(C) no.29649 of 2024, (parties own case), he submits, the earlier order was set aside and the proceeding restored. Same direction be made here.

On query made Mr. Kar points out from impugned order, there is clear statement that his client did not furnish reply. He demonstrates from the disclosures, show cause notice was issued and reply duly filed by prescribed form on 25th October, 2023. He seeks interference.

Mr. Mishra, learned advocate, Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State revenue and submits, these are two distinct and separate proceedings. However, he is unable to improve on the statement of reply not filed, when it actually was. Mr. Kedia, learned advocate, Junior Standing Counsel appears on behalf of Central revenue.

Petitioner had filed reply and obviously it was not considered. There was violation of principles of natural justice. Impugned order is set aside and quashed and the proceeding restored. Petitioner will forthwith communicate certified copy of this order to the authority by 15th January 2025, for the authority to proceed afresh. Omission to communicate will automatically restore impugned order.

The writ petition is disposed of. (Arindam Sinha)