Dismissed

M/S.Bharti Telemedia Ltd. v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC15 Sept 2020WP(C)/20639/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition directly filed by the taxpayer challenging show-cause notices for Entry Tax. The Court held that the petitioner must first approach the competent authority to reply to the notices before seeking writ relief.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to appear before the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax, CT & GST, Bhubaneswar II on 28.09.2020 to file a reply to the show cause notice dated 12.08.2020.

M/S.Bharti Telemedia Ltd. Vs State of Odisha — Consumer Protection | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(C) No.20639 of 2020

¶2

15.09.2020 Heard Mr. J. Sahoo, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Parija, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. M.S. Sahoo, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite parties by Video Conferencing mode.

¶3

2. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitionerM/s. Bharti Telemedia Ltd. assailing the show cause notices dated 12.05.2020 (Annexure-4) and dated 12.08.2020 (Annexure9) issued by opposite party no.2-Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax, CT & GST, Bhubaneswar II.

¶4

3. The competent authority called upon the petitioner to deposit the total accrued Entry Tax and interest amounting to Rs.97,27,708/- by 28.05.2020 by show cause notice dated 12.05.2020 (Annexure-4) and on failure to deposit the same indicated therein to take recovery action as provided under Section 12(1) of the OET (Amendment) Act, 2005 and penal action as provided under Section 11(2)(ii) of the OET (Amendment) Act, 2005. The petitioner in reply to the said show cause notice submitted an application dated 11.06.2020 (Annexure-5) seeking one month time to submit reply citing the difficulties faced by its Office due to ongoing pandemic COVID-19. By the subsequent show cause notice dated 12.08.2020 (Annexure-9), the petitioner was called upon to appear and sustain his claim before the competent authority by 20.08.2020 failing which it was observed that the authority concerned would take recovery and penal action as per the provisions of the OET (Amendment) Act, 2005.

¶5

4. Mr. A.K. Parija, learned Advocate General for the Stateopposite parties submits that the petitioner ought to approach the competent authority i.e. opposite party no.2-Joint Commissioner

¶6

-2-

¶7

of Sales Tax, CT & GST, Bhubaneswar II and file his reply to impugned show cause notice dated 12.08.2020 (Annexure-9) and make all its submissions as to why the petitioner is not liable to pay the demanded entry tax and the interest thereof. Therefore, he submits that the writ petition filed against the impugned show cause notice should not be entertained.

¶8

5. Having heard rival submissions, we are inclined to uphold the objection that since the petitioner has an efficacious remedy by way of filing of reply to the impugned show cause notice by appearing before the competent authority, the writ petition filed directly before this Court against the impugned show cause notice is not maintainable.

¶9

6. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to appear before opposite party no.2-Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax, CT & GST, Bhubaneswar II, Bhubaneswar on 28.09.2020 and file reply to the impugned show cause notice dated 12.08.2020 (Annexure-9).

¶10

As Lock-down period is continuing for COVID-19, learned counsel may utilize the soft copy of this order available in the High Court’s website or print out thereof at par with certified copies in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25.03.2020.

¶11

(Mohammad Rafiq) Chief Justice

¶12

(Dr. B.R. Sarangi) Judge

¶13

SKG/MP

M/S.Bharti Telemedia Ltd. v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Bharti Telemedia Ltd. v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bank of Baroda Vs Collector and the District Magistrate, Cuttack

Kishore Chandra Pal Vs Principal Secretary to Govt. Panchayat Raj Dept.

Sriram Sahoo Vs Principal Secretary to Govt. Panchayat Raj Dept.

Sisir Vs Mahanadi Coal Fields

Dibyakanta Panigrahi Vs State of Odisha

Rishabh Rath Vs Icici Bank Ltd., Khurda