Arati Majhi vs. State Of Odisha

Held

The Court did not delve into the merits of the case. It acknowledged the petitioner's submission that the demand had not yet been finalized by the opposite parties. Consequently, the Court permitted the petitioner to furnish a reply to the impugned demand notice on Part-B of the Form before the competent authority within fifteen days from the date of the order. The Court also noted that if the demand had already been finalized and communicated to the petitioner, she would be at liberty to avail the remedy of appeal before the appropriate authority. The ratio decidendi is that procedural fairness requires adequate opportunity to respond to a demand, and where such opportunity is demonstrably short, the authority should grant reasonable time, especially if the demand is not yet finalized.

Facts

The petitioner, Arati Majhi, challenged a demand notice dated 24.02.2020 issued by the Proper Officer, C.T & G.S.T. Circle, Jagatsinghpur. The notice demanded Rs. 14,86,384/- towards tax, Rs. 3,07,865/- towards interest, and Rs. 14,86,384/- towards penalty, totaling Rs. 32,80,633/-. This demand was made under Sections 73(5)/74(5) of the Odisha Goods And Services Tax Act, 2017, referencing a Case Proceeding Reference No. ZA211119003430D dated 15.11.2019. The petitioner received the notice on 25.02.2020 and was required to file a reply by 28.02.2020. The petitioner contended that the two-day period was insufficient to file a reply. Furthermore, the petitioner stated that the demand had not yet been finalized by the authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner was afforded a reasonable opportunity to file a reply to the demand notice dated 24.02.2020, considering the short period of three days between receipt of the notice and the due date for filing the reply? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the Odisha Goods And Services Tax Act, 2017). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that receiving the demand notice on 25.02.2020 and being required to file a reply by 28.02.2020 provided only two days for preparation, which was insufficient. The petitioner sought an extension of at least fifteen days to file the reply. The petitioner also highlighted that the demand had not yet been finalized by the authority. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or the opposite parties.