Maa Sarala Fly Ash Bricks Vs Commissioner of CT and GST (Orissa High Court)
The Orissa High Court addressed a writ petition filed by Maa Sarala Fly Ash Bricks, challenging a GST assessment order. The petitioner, a manufacturer of fly ash bricks, contested an order that rejected their request for an analysis of their brick products. The petitioner argued that the revenue department failed to collect samples during their initial investigation, relying instead on confidential information and later-submitted samples, which the petitioner alleges were unfairly deemed “doctored.” The court examined the timeline of events, noting that the assessment proceedings stemmed from an earlier investigation based on confidential information, which led to the issuance of a tax ascertainment notice. The petitioner had previously sought judicial intervention, resulting in a directive for further proceedings, which then led to the disputed order rejecting their analysis request.
The court focused on the revenue’s omission to collect samples during the initial inspection, despite having the authority to do so under Section 154 of the Orissa Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The revenue’s explanation, provided in an additional affidavit, was deemed insufficient by the court. The court highlighted the discrepancy between the revenue’s claim of the petitioner providing “doctored” samples and their failure to collect original samples during the investigation. Given this procedural lapse, the court found the revenue’s position untenable. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order, along with the preceding show cause notice and subsequent reminders. The court’s decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory procedures, particularly the collection of samples, in GST assessment proceedings.
