Case Law Details
Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Vs Additional Commissioner of GST and CE (Orissa High Court)
In the case Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Vs. Additional Commissioner of GST and CE, the Orissa High Court addressed the challenge against a Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued by the Centre under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. The petitioner, represented by Mr. Harichandan, argued that the SCN, dated 26th July 2024, was improper for two primary reasons. First, it was argued that the consolidation of matters, which had already been addressed in a prior judgment by a learned single judge in the High Court of Karnataka in the Veremax Technologie Services Ltd. case, was not permissible. Secondly, the petitioner pointed out that the central revenue authorities were seeking to take action on a matter that had already been handled by the state revenue authorities, which, according to Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, was barred.
The court, after hearing the arguments, decided to stay the SCN issued by the Centre until the next hearing date. The court’s decision was based on the assertion that the central authorities’ actions were not in line with the legal provisions, particularly when the state authorities had already taken action on the same issue. The case was adjourned for further consideration, and the impugned SCN remains stayed until the hearing scheduled for 16th January 2025.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ORISSA HIGH COURT
1. Mr. Harichandan, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 26th July, 2024 issued under section 74 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is under challenge. There are two grounds. Firstly, there has been consolidation which is not permissible on being taken by a learned single Judge in the High Court of Karnataka on judgment dated 4th September, 2024 in Writ Petition no.15810 of 2024 (T-Res) (Veremax Technologie Services Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax).
2. Furthermore, the central revenue has sought to act in spite of the State revenue having had already acted. Subject matter of the SCN is barred by section 6(2)(b).
3. Mr. Kedia, learned advocate, Junior Standing Counsel appears on behalf of opposite party nos.1 to 5. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate, Standing Counsel appears on behalf of opposite party nos.8 to 10.
4. Opposite party may obtained instruction. In the meantime, impugned SCN will remain stayed till next date of hearing.
5. List under same heading on 16th January, 2025.
Author Bio
