M/S Das Agency vs. The Chief Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha
Original PDF →Facts
The Petitioner, M/s. Das Agency, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Orissa 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 & Ors.) to revoke the blocking/negative blocking of its Input Tax Credit (ITC) facility. The Petitioner contended that this action was taken arbitrarily and illegally, violating Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution, without granting 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 addressed the grievance regarding the blocking of ITC on the GST portal.
Held
The Court noted that the Petitioner's grievance regarding 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's counsel stated that they did not press the relief related to the ITC blocking. Regarding the remaining prayers, the Court was not inclined to entertain them. However, the Petitioner was granted liberty to approach the appropriate statutory Appellate Authority for redressal of its grievances in accordance with law. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claims raised by the Petitioner. If the Petitioner approached the Appellate Authority within the prescribed time, the authority was directed to consider the matter in accordance with law. 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 Arguments: The Petitioner argued that the action of blocking ITC was arbitrary, illegal, and violative of constitutional rights, specifically Articles 14 (equality before law), 19(1)(g) (freedom to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business), and 265 (no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law). They contended that this was done without providing an opportunity for a hearing and without the requisite 'reasons to believe' being recorded by the authority. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Opposite Parties (Revenue).
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 (video conferencing/physical mode).
Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties.
By filing the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner, M/s. Das Agency, represented by its proprietor, Sisir Kumar Dash, has challenged the proceedings culminating in the orders under Annexures-3 and 6. The Petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for quashing of the said orders and for a direction to the Opposite Parties to revoke the blocking/negative blocking of the Input Tax Credit (ITC) facility linked to the Petitioner’s GSTIN. The Petitioner has further prayed for a declaration that the action of the Opposite Parties in blocking/negatively blocking the ITC facility, 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. A further prayer has been made for payment of interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the ITC allegedly blocked from the date of blocking until the date of restoration.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that, during the pendency of the present proceeding, the Department has redressed the grievance relating to the blocking/negative blocking of the ITC facility on the GST portal. In view thereof, learned counsel for the Petitioner does not press the said relief.
Insofar as the remaining prayers are concerned, having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon consideration of the averments made in the writ petition, this Court is not inclined to entertain the same. However, the Petitioner is granted liberty to approach the appropriate statutory Appellate Authority for redressal of its grievances, in accordance with law.
It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claims raised by the Petitioner. If the Petitioner approaches the appropriate Appellate Authority within the period prescribed under law, the said authority shall consider the matter in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge
(Murahari Sri Raman)
Judge
Sipun
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.