M/S. Sisirabha Properties PVT.LTD., Berhampur vs. The Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs (CBIC), New Delhi
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER 08.10.2024
1. Mr. Kar, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client availed of statutory remedy under sub-section (11) of section 107 in Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on preferring appeal to the first appellate authority. By reason of
// 2 //
turmoil in the affairs of his client, the appeal could not be prosecuted and was dealt with ex parte on order dated 7th May, 2024. There has since been some kind of settlement in the affairs of his client and hence, it is before Court for interference seeking restoration of its right of appeal. On query from Court he submits, the first appellate authority does not have power of recall or review.
Mr. Das, learned advocate, Additional Standing Counsel appears on behalf of opposite party nos.2 and 3 and submits, petitioner can avail of further statutory remedy by appeal to the Tribunal. As there is no Tribunal functioning, coordinate Bench had accordingly directed to overcome the situation as by order dated 16th February, 2024 in W.P.(C) no.42015 of 2023 (M/s. Maa Tarini Traders v. State of Odisha and others). Petitioner can make the requisite deposit and availing the remedy.
Mr. Kedia, learned advocate, Junior Standing Counsel appears on behalf of opposite party no.1. 4. Coordinate Bench by order dated 16th February, 2024 (supra) directed deposit. Petitioner’s contention is, it wants to prosecute the
// 3 //
first appeal. By requiring it to prefer second appeal and comply with the direction for deposit on absence of the Tribunal, petitioner will be compelled to accept a position without having had been heard in first appeal. Petitioner does not dispute that opportunity was given to it to present its case before the first appellate authority.
On query from Court Mr. Kar submits with reference to paragraph 4.4, the notices could not be served because of the turmoil. There is no allegation that notices were not duly issued for service. Mr. Das points out, the notices were uploaded in the portal. Mr. Kar reiterates turmoil in affairs of his client.
Regarding assertion of petitioner of it having been in difficulty we are not inclined to require counter being filed because revenue can at best dispute the assertion. In the peculiar circumstances, we interfere to set aside impugned order on direction for petitioner to prosecute the appeal before the appellate authority on 4th November, 2024. The first appellate authority may hear petitioner on that day or post the appeal to any other day, as per its convenience. In event petitioner does not appear on 4th November, 2024 before the first
// 4 //
appellate authority, impugned order will stand automatically restored. In event the first appellate authority is not available on 4th November, 2024, for any reason whatsoever, petitioner will approach the office on being entitled to have its presence recorded.
The writ petition is disposed of.
(Arindam Sinha)
Judge
(M.S. Sahoo)
Judge Jyoti
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.