Case Law Details
Indera Motors Vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Orissa High Court)
The Orissa High Court addressed a petition challenging the recovery notice issued to the assessee for ₹64,56,777/- in interest arrears. The notice, dated June 25, 2024, required a reply by July 9, 2024. However, the petitioner submitted a delayed response on November 11, 2024, which was received by the authorities on November 13, 2024. The petitioner sought a directive for the tax authorities to consider this belated reply before proceeding with any recovery action. The respondent’s counsel noted that although the reply was overdue, the recovery process had not yet commenced.
The High Court ruled that since no recovery proceedings had started, the petitioner’s reply should be considered. It directed the tax authorities to review the reply and issue a reasoned order before initiating any recovery. Until the order is communicated to the petitioner, no further recovery action should take place. This decision ensures that procedural rights are upheld, allowing taxpayers an opportunity to present their case even if there is a delay in response submission. The court disposed of the writ petition with these directions.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ORISSA HIGH COURT
Mr. Ray, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, notice dated 25th June, 2024 was issued for recovery of arrears amounting to ₹64,56,777/- towards interest. Reply was to be filed by 9th July, 2024. His client filed reply dated 11th November, 2024, received by the office on 13th November, 2024. Prayer of his client is for direction upon the authority to consider the reply.
2. On earlier occasion on behalf of revenue adjournment was obtained to get instructions. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate, Standing Counsel appears on behalf of revenue and draws attention to said notice dated 25th June, 2024 and submits, it will appear from it that personal appearance was to be on 9th July, 2024, when the reply would have been accepted. Petitioner appeared and sought for time. Furthermore, his oral instructions are, recovery proceedings have not yet been initiated.
3. We have already noticed petitioner’s contention is the reply was filed out of time and it be considered. Since recovery proceeding has not yet been initiated, we direct opposite party no.2 to consider petitioner’s reply dated 11th November, 2024, received on 13th November, 2024. Order be made informing petitioner on his contentions in the reply. Till before such order is communicated to petitioner, there should not be recovery proceeding initiated.
4. The writ petition is disposed of.
Author Bio
