M/S Trimurti Sales And Marketing,Cuttack vs. The Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha,Cuttack
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Trimurti Sales and Marketing, filed a writ petition before the Orissa High Court challenging an order dated December 24, 2025, passed by the State Tax Officer, Bhubaneswar-I Circle, under Section 73 of the GST Act. This order pertained to tax periods from April 1, 2021, to March 1, 2022, and was preceded by a notice dated September 24, 2025. The petitioner argued that after responding to an earlier notice under Section 61 of the GST Act in 2022 with explanations and documents, and receiving no further action, the subsequent reopening of the issue in 2025 was impermissible. The revenue contended that the matter involved factual disputes and the petitioner had an alternative remedy under the GST Act.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable and the petitioner should avail the alternative statutory remedy. The Court found force in the revenue's submission that Section 107 of the GST Act provides a mechanism to question the veracity and validity of the adjudication order dated December 24, 2025. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. However, the Court reserved liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum within fifteen days. The Court further directed that for the purpose of computation of the limitation period for filing the appeal, the appellate authority should consider the period during which the writ petition was pursued before the High Court. The appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal on its merits, subject to fulfillment of other statutory requirements, and the Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the matter or the point of limitation.
Key Issues
1. Whether the reopening of the tax issue for the periods April 1, 2021, to March 1, 2022, by the State Tax Officer in 2025, after the petitioner had responded to a notice under Section 61 of the GST Act in 2022 and no further proceedings were initiated, is impermissible and renders the subsequent adjudication order a nullity, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner, having challenged the adjudication order dated December 24, 2025, passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, should be relegated to the alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, as argued by the revenue? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the Proper Officer's acceptance of their explanation under Section 61 of the GST Act in 2022, without further proceedings, precluded the reopening of the same issue in 2025. They relied on the principle that once an issue is closed, it cannot be reopened without proper justification. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that the writ petition should not be entertained as the GST Act is a self-contained code and the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act to challenge the adjudication order. They emphasized that the case involves factual disputes requiring adjudication on evidence.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 61, Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER 30.09.2026
This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
Assailing the order dated 24th December, 2025 (Annexure- 5) passed by the State Tax Officer, Bhubaneswar-I Circle, Bhubaneswar, Odisha exercising of power under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, “the GST Act”) pursuant to notice dated 24th September, 2025 (Annexure-4) pertaining to tax periods from 1st April, 2021 to 1st March, 2022, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition invoking provisions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that under Section 61 of the GST Act, the Proper Officer is empowered to issue a notice upon finding discrepancies. In the present case, the petitioner duly replied to the notice in Form ASMT-11, furnishing the necessary explanation and supporting documents, including the balance sheet. Since the Proper Officer accepted the petitioner’s explanation and did not initiate any further proceedings in 2022, the subsequent reopening of the same issue in 2025 is alleged to be impermissible and liable to be treated as a nullity.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the CT & GST Organization opposing the entertainment of the writ petition, submitted that the contention of the petitioner is required to be tested factually and the petitioner is not remediless, inasmuch as the GST Act is self-contained code. Therefore, he fervently requested not to entertain this writ petition, but to relegate the petitioner to avail remedy in accordance with law.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for CT & GST Organization.
Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. It is apparent from the record that the petitioner has challenged adjudication order dated 24th December, 2025 (Annexure-5). On careful consideration of the pleading reveals that the case involves factual disputes, which can be adjudicated upon on evidence being placed before the authority concerned. This Court finds force in the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel that Section 107 of the GST Act provides mechanism to question the veracity and validity of the adjudication order dated 24th December, 2025. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Nonetheless, reserves liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law. The petitioner, if so advised, may file appeal within a period of fifteen days hence.
On perusal of record, it further reveals that the order under Section 73 of the GST Act was passed on 24th December, 2025 and the writ petition was presented before this Court on 29th April, 2026. As conceded by the learned Standing Counsel, having regard to sub-section (1) and sub-section (4) of the Section 107 of the GST Act, it is perceived that the writ petition was filed within the period(s) stipulated therein. For the purpose of computation period of limitation the appellate authority shall do well to consider the case of the petitioner by taking into account the period during which the writ petition has been pursued before this Court. Subject to fulfilment of other statutory
requirement, the authority concerned shall decide the appeal on its merit in accordance with law. It is clarified that this Court has expressed no opinion neither on merit of the matter nor the point of limitation.
With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. As a result of disposal of the writ petition, all pending Interlocutory Application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
(Murahari Sri Raman)
Judge Laxmikant
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.