Case Law Details
Iliyas Granites Vs Superintendent GST and CE (Orissa High Court)
Orissa High Court set aside an order dated November 18, 2024, passed under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, and directed a fresh hearing. The petitioner, Iliyas Granites, had challenged the order, which alleged suppression and willful misstatement related to royalty payments made to the government, leading to a demand for unpaid GST. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the core issue of taxability of royalty payments was already pending before the Supreme Court and listed for hearing on the same day as the High Court proceedings. The petitioner’s counsel sought interim relief.
The revenue’s counsel clarified that the GST demand in this case was not directly related to the royalty payments themselves but rather to the alleged suppression and willful misstatement. However, upon inquiry, the revenue counsel admitted that the petitioner’s reliance on the pending Supreme Court proceedings concerning the show-cause notice had not been considered by the adjudicating authority.
Considering these facts, the High Court decided to set aside the impugned order and restore the proceedings to the stage before the order was passed. The court directed the petitioner to communicate a certified copy of its order to the Superintendent of GST and CE (opposite party no. 1) by February 10, 2025, and obtain a date for the hearing. The adjudicating authority was then directed to grant the petitioner a hearing and pass a fresh order. The High Court cautioned the petitioner against seeking unnecessary adjournments. It was also stipulated that if the petitioner failed to communicate the court’s order by the specified date, the original impugned order would automatically be restored. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ORISSA HIGH COURT
1. Mr. Harichandan, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, under challenge is, inter alia, order dated 18th November, 2024 passed under section 74 of Central Goods and Services Act, 2017. His client paid royalty to Government. Allegation was made of suppression and wilfull misstatement to demand tax on the royalty. The issue is before the Supreme Court and listed to be heard today itself. He seeks interference, interim at this stage.
2. Mr. Satapathy, learned advocate, Senior Standing Counsel appears on behalf of revenue and submits, demand here is for goods and services tax not paid on suppression and wilfull misstatement. Issue before the Supreme Court was in respect of service tax. On query made he submits, petitioner’s reliance on pending proceedings in the Supreme Court mentioned in respect to the show-cause notice was not considered.
3. In view of aforesaid, we are inclined to and set aside impugned order, restoring the proceeding. Petitioner will communicate certified copy of this order to opposite party no.1 by 10th February, 2025 and obtain date of hearing. The authority will on hearing petitioner, pass fresh order. Petitioner will not seek unnecessary adjournments. In event the communication is not made impugned order will stand automatically restored.
4. The writ petition is disposed of.
Author Bio
