M/S Das Agency vs. The Chief Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s. Das Agency, filed a writ petition before the Orissa High Court challenging proceedings that led to orders under Annexures-3 and 6. The Petitioner sought to quash these orders and compel the Opposite Parties (Chief Commissioner of CT & GST, Odisha, and others) to revoke the blocking/negative blocking of its Input Tax Credit (ITC) facility. The Petitioner contended that this action was arbitrary, illegal, and violated Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution, as it was allegedly done without an opportunity of hearing or recording reasons to believe. The Petitioner also sought interest on the blocked ITC. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Department redressed the grievance regarding the blocking of the ITC facility on the GST portal.

Held

The Court noted that the Petitioner's grievance concerning the blocking/negative blocking of the ITC facility on the GST portal had been redressed by the Department during the pendency of the writ petition. Consequently, the Petitioner did not press for relief on this specific issue. Regarding the remaining prayers, the Court, after hearing both parties and considering the averments in the writ petition, was not inclined to entertain them. Instead, the Court granted the Petitioner liberty to approach the appropriate statutory Appellate Authority for the redressal of its grievances in accordance with the law. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the Petitioner's claims and that the Appellate Authority would consider the matter if approached within the prescribed period. The Writ Petition was disposed of on this basis.

Key Issues

1. Whether the blocking/negative blocking of the Petitioner's Input Tax Credit (ITC) facility by the Opposite Parties, allegedly without granting an opportunity of hearing and without recording reasons to believe, is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the blocking of its ITC facility was done without due process, specifically without providing an opportunity for a hearing and without the requisite 'reasons to believe' being recorded by the authorities. This action, it was contended, was arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, including the right to carry on business and the right against arbitrary deprivation of property. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue or state. However, the court's subsequent inclination not to entertain the remaining prayers suggests a potential disagreement with the petitioner's claims or a procedural preference.