2025(03)LCX0513
Harekrushna Sahoo
Versus
Chief Commissioner of CT and GST
WP(C) No. 5809 of 2025 decided on 03-03-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT
CUTTACK
WP(C) No.5809 of 2025
M/s. Harekrushna
…. Petitioner
Sahoo, Kendrapara
Represented by Adv.-
Miss Itishree Tripathy, Advocate
Mr. Daitari Behera, Advocate
-versus-
Chief Commissioner
…. Opposite Parties
of CT and GST,
Odisha, Cuttack and
Represented by Adv.-
others
Mr. Sunil Mishra, Advocate
(Standing Counsel)
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM
SINHA,
THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO
ORDER
03.03.2025
Order No.
01.
1. Miss Tripathy, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, impugned is order dated 22nd February, 2024 made under section 73 in Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. She draws attention to preceding show cause notice dated 14th December, 2023 and order dated 22nd February, 2024 and points out therefrom, her client was told that proceedingunder section 73 would be initiated because it had not, inter alia, furnished reply to communication by ASMT-10 dated 13th January, 2022 detail Reference no.ZD210122006014K. She demonstrates from page21, it is disclosure of reply dated 25th April, 2022 furnished by her client with reference to the referred communication. As such, revenue could not have proceeded under section 73 without considering her client’s reply. She seeks interference.
2. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate, Standing Counsel appears on behalf of revenue and submits, the proceeding in which petitioner was asked to furnish reply was under section 61. Even though proceeding under section 73 was thereafter initiated overlooking petitioner’s reply, in the subsequent proceeding adequate opportunity of hearing was given to petitioner. In the circumstances, no prejudice was suffered by petitioner. The writ petition be dismissed.
3. Section 61, by sub-section (2) requires consideration of explanation furnished. Sub-section (3) says, in case no satisfactory explanation is furnished, the proper officer may initiate appropriate action under, inter alia, section 73. On query made Mr. Mishra could not demonstrate that in impugned order made under section 73, said reply dated 25th April, 2022 was considered.
4. Initiation of the proceeding under section 73 was clearly without jurisdiction. Impugned order is set aside and quashed. Petitioner’s said reply dated 25th April, 2022 is to be dealt with under section 61 and thereafter revenue can proceed.
5. The writ petition is disposed of.
( Arindam Sinha )
Acting Chief Justice
( M.S. Sahoo )
Judge