In a recent landmark judgment, the Orissa High Court addressed the intricacies surrounding 245 writ petitions and their disposition, shedding light on the nuances of the amnesty scheme. The case, M/s. Pravat Kumar Choudhury v. Additional State Tax Officer, CT & GST, Cuttack [WP (C) No. 6684 of 2023 dated November 6, 2023], along with 244 other cases, brought into focus the implications of Notification No. 53/2023 – Central Tax issued on dated November 2, 2023
The Hon’ble Orissa High Court disposed of the writ petitions thereby remanding the matter to appellate authority on account of Notification No. 53/2023 – Central Tax dated November 2, 2023 wherein special procedure under amnesty scheme for filing appeals has been provided for the taxable person who could not file the appeal on or before March 31, 2023, against the orders passed under Section 73 or 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”).
Facts:
The genesis of the legal imbroglio lies in the first appellate orders, termed the “Impugned Orders,” issued by the Revenue Department (the Respondent). These orders rejected appeals on the grounds of being time-barred under sub-section (1) read with sub-section (4) of Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). Pertinently, aggrieved by these orders, 245 petitioners approached the Hon’ble Orissa High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Amidst the pendency of these writ petitions, the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), issued Notification No. 53/2023 – Central Tax, presenting a special procedure under the amnesty scheme for filing appeals.
Held:
The Hon’ble Orissa High Court in the case of WP (C) 6684 of 2023 and other writ petitions held that:
- Opined that, the CBIC issued Notification No. 53/2023 – Central Tax dated November 2, 2023, which notified the procedure for filing an appeal in cases where the taxable person who could not file an appeal on or before March 31, 2023, against the orders passed under Section 73 or 74 of the CGST Act, by the proper officer within the time period specified in sub-section (1) of section 107 read with sub-section (4) of section 107 of the CGST Act, and the taxable persons whose appeal against the said order was rejected solely on the grounds that the said appeal was not filed within the time period specified in section 107, as the class of persons, shall follow certain special procedure for filing appeals in such cases.
- Held that, the Impugned Orders are set aside, and the matters are remanded to the Respondent to proceed in accordance with law. The amount of tax deposited by the Petitioners, suo moto, or as per the interim orders passed by the Court should be taken into consideration while deciding the case of the Petitioner on merit, and refund if any, would be subject to the outcome of the appeal. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Orissa High Court’s comprehensive analysis and judicial pronouncement in the case of M/s. Pravat Kumar Choudhury v. Additional State Tax Officer offer significant insights into the evolving landscape of tax litigation. By aligning its decision with the provisions of Notification No. 53/2023 – Central Tax, the court has demonstrated a nuanced understanding of the complexities surrounding amnesty schemes and their implications on legal proceedings.
The decision not only provides relief to the petitioners by setting aside the Impugned Orders but also paves the way for a fair and just reconsideration of their appeals under the prescribed amnesty scheme. The emphasis on the importance of tax deposits ensures that financial considerations are integral to the adjudication process, adding a layer of practicality to the legal proceedings.
****
Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)
Author Bio
