Case Law Details
Chirag Industries Bhubaneswar Vs Additional Commissioner of State Tax (High Court Orissa)
In a noteworthy ruling, the Orissa High Court has put a temporary halt to coercive actions against Chirag Industries of Bhubaneswar during the pendency of their writ petition. The case pertains to the demand of GST arrears, with the contention primarily revolving around penalty and fine.
The writ petition came into consideration primarily because the Second Appellate Tribunal, the usual forum for such issues, is not yet constituted. Chirag Industries’ challenge before the first appellate authority was confined to the demand for penalty and fine, and the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.K. Harichandan, confirmed this position.
In response to these proceedings and considering the petitioner’s intention to appeal before the appellate Tribunal when it is constituted, the court decided on an interim measure. It directed that no coercive action should be taken against the petitioner as far as the disputed demand is concerned, during the pendency of the writ petition. This decision reflects the court’s effort to balance the need for immediate tax recovery with the rights of the petitioner.
Conclusion: This interim directive by the Orissa High Court underscores the important principle that no coercive actions should be taken during the pendency of legal proceedings, maintaining a fair and equitable legal process. The court’s decision to hold off on any coercive actions until the writ petition is resolved reaffirms the judicial commitment to preserving the rights of all parties in a dispute. However, as the case is pending, the final resolution will be determined once the writ petition is settled and the Second Appellate Tribunal is constituted.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ORISSA HIGH COURT
01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. The present writ petition is being entertained only because the Second Appellate Tribunal has not yet been constituted.
3. Issue notice. Since Mr. Diganta Dash, learned Addl. Standing counsel for the Department accepts notice for the Opposite parties, let required number of copies of the writ petition be served on him within three working days. Reply be filed within two weeks and rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next
4. List this matter connecting with W.P.(C) No.5501 of 2023 on the date fixed therein.
02. 1. Mr. P.K. Harichandan, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the demand as confimed in the first appeal order relates to penalty & fine.
2. Perusal of order dated 7th June, 2023, it is found that challenge before the first appellate authority against the demand is confined to penalty & fine.
3. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner would prefer appeal before the appellate Tribunal after it is constituted, as an interim measure, it is directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the Petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition so far as the impugned demand is concerned.
