Maa Sarala Steel Vs State Tax officer (Orissa High Court)
Orissa High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Maa Sarala Steel, which challenged a demand notice issued by the State Tax Officer. The petitioner-company contested the demand notice, presented in Form GST DRC-07, on the grounds that it was issued without a detailed, reasoned order being uploaded or served, as required under Section 130 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The demand was for the period from April 2023 to March 2024.
Maa Sarala Steel’s legal counsel, Mr. Jagabandhu Sahoo, argued that the Form GST DRC-07, while stating that a detailed notice was attached, was factually incomplete as the attachment was missing from the portal. This, he contended, rendered the demand notice legally untenable.
During the hearing, the State’s Standing Counsel, Mr. Sunil Mishra, on instructions from the tax authority, conceded that the detailed reasoned order had not been uploaded or served due to an inadvertent error. He presented a physical copy of the reasoned order, dated May 6, 2025, to the petitioner’s counsel in court.
In its decision, the High Court observed that since the detailed order had now been served, the petitioner had an alternative remedy available under the statute—the right to file an appeal with the appellate authority. Based on this, the court chose not to entertain the writ petition. The court’s ruling follows a common judicial principle that a writ petition may not be the appropriate legal recourse when an effective and explicit alternative remedy exists. By dismissing the petition, the court effectively directed the petitioner to pursue the appeal process as prescribed by the GST Act.
