Case Law Details
Shrushti Infotech Private Limited Vs State Tax Officer (Orissa High Court)
In a recent ruling, the Orissa High Court addressed a pivotal case involving Shrushti Infotech Private Limited versus the State Tax Officer. The court’s decision centered on the legality of a GST order issued under Section 74 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax (OGST) Act, highlighting procedural shortcomings.
The crux of the matter revolved around the issuance of orders on November 2, 2023, by the State Tax Officer, Bhubaneswar-II Circle, without affording Shrushti Infotech an opportunity for a personal hearing. Represented by Mr. R.P. Kar and Mr. A.N. Ray, the petitioner vehemently argued against the validity of these orders, citing a violation of procedural justice.
The High Court, through a hybrid hearing mode, heard arguments from both sides. Mr. S. Mishra, representing the Revenue, acknowledged the oversight in denying a hearing to the petitioner. Importantly, the court referenced its previous judgment in Khani Khyatigrasta Gramya Committee, reinforcing the importance of due process in such matters.
In its deliberation, the Orissa High Court refrained from delving into the substantive merits of the case but decisively ruled that the orders issued without granting a hearing were unsustainable in the eyes of the law. Consequently, the court quashed the orders dated November 2, 2023, and remanded the case to the State Tax Officer for a fresh hearing. This directive aligns with legal principles and ensures fairness in administrative proceedings under the OGST Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ORISSA HIGH COURT
This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. R.P. Kar, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. N. Ray, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. S. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue.
3. The Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the orders dated 02.11.2023 passed by Opposite Party No.1-State Tax Officer, Bhubaneswar-II Circle, Bhubaneswar under Section 74 of the OGST Act without granting any opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner and an order has been passed.
4. Mr. R.P. Kar, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. A.N. Ray, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner vehemently contended that Opposite Party No.1-State Tax Officer, Bhubaneswar-II Circle, Bhubaneswar has passed the orders dated 02.11.2023 under Section 74 of the OGST Act without giving any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. Therefore, the Petitioner approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition. He is further contended that the case of the Petitioner is fully covered by the judgment of this Court in Khani Khyatigrasta Gramya Committee v. The Commissioner of Commercial Tax & GST and Another (in W.P.(C) No.27946 of 2023, disposed of on 09.11.2023).
5. Mr. S. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue contended that since the Petitioner has not been given opportunity of hearing, the matter has to be remanded to the authority concerned so that opportunity of hearing can be given to the Petitioner in consonance with the provision of law.
6. Considering the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, but, however without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, since the State Tax officer while passing the orders dated 02.11.2023 has not been given opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, the said orders cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the orders dated 02.11.2023 are liable to be quashed and are hereby quashed. Therefore, this Court remits back to the very same authority to rehear the matter afresh in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner taking into consideration the ratio decided by this Court in Khani Khyatigrasta Gramya Committee (supra).
7. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Author Bio
