Case Law Details
Sourav Satapathy Vs Commissioner of CT & GST (Orissa High Court)
Court finds that the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the demands raised by the authority vide Annexure-7 and Annexure-8. The contention of the petitioner is that he has already paid the amount vide Annexure-5 series. If the contention of the petitioner, that he has already paid the demands raised by the authority is accepted, then it is the responsibility of the petitioner to apprise the authority concerned indicating that the demands raised are erroneous and, as such, in view of the dues already paid vide Annexure-5 series, the demand notices be rectified. But instead of doing so, the petitioner waited for three years and, thereafter, approached this Court challenging the assessment orders passed by the authority on 17.03.2020 for 2017-18 and 29.07.2021 for 2018-19. But the assessment order is very clear that the petitioner has been issued with a provisional ID for enrolment on the common portal, but he has failed to enroll on the common portal. Therefore, the provisional certificate of registration was cancelled as per the provision contained in Section 139 (1) of the CGST/OGST Act. The rate of GST for works contract service has been prescribed in Sl.No.3 of the Notification No.11/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 of Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India and Notification bearing S.R.O. No.305/2017 dated 29.06.2017 of Finance Department, Govt. of Odisha, as amended by Notification No.20/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 22.08.2017 and Notification No.24/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 21.09.2017 at the rate of 12% (CGST @6% & SGST @6%). Therefore, if the petitioner is aggrieved by such assessment order, he could have preferred appeal within the time specified. Now, at a belated stage, the petitioner could not have approached this Court making request to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for re-assessment. As such, extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised, particularly when an alternative remedy is available.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ORISSA HIGH COURT
This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mrs. K.R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for CT & GST.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
