Disposed¶6

M/S. Merlin Min Movers, Keonjhar v. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs,New Delhi

Orissa HC14 Feb 2025WP(C)/3319/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Odisha GST S.73 demand order set aside for want of personal hearing; notice personal hearing column marked NA; no reply to Form DRC-01; proceeding initiated pursuant to audit; ex parte order alleged made on surmise and conjecture; premise that taxable person must reply and seek hearing; conditional revival / automatic restoration of order if certified copy not delivered to opposite party no.3 by 03.03.2025; writ petition disposed; CBIC and State revenue; M/s. Merlin Min Movers, Keonjhar; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; Arindam Sinha Acting Chief Justice; M.S. Sahoo.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; petitioner to communicate certified copy to opposite party no.3 by 03.03.2025 to obtain a date of personal hearing, failing which the impugned order is automatically restored. ¶6

M/S. Merlin Min Movers, Keonjhar Vs Central Board of… — GST and Indirect Tax | Orissa HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶6

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 07.08.2024 made under S.73, Odisha GST Act, 2017 — passed ex parte after the notice showed personal hearing as NA and no reply was filed to the DRC-01 notice — should be set aside and the petitioner afforded an opportunity of personal hearing. +1 more

¶4

Court's answer

An opportunity of personal hearing is to be given to the petitioner, there being indication from the impugned order of possible necessity for adding, amending, deleting or modifying it.

¶4

Ratio / Principle

The Court accepted the authority initially proceeding on a notice indicating personal hearing not applicable, on the premise that a person liable to pay tax will reply to the notice and seek personal hearing to support statements made in defence.

¶4

Key takeaways

Where no reply is supported to the notice, the authority proceeds on the presumption that there is no defence.ratio¶4
The impugned order dated 07.08.2024 made under S.73, Odisha GST Act, 2017, is set aside.ratio¶5
Petitioner is directed to communicate a certified copy of this order to opposite party no.3 by 3 March 2025, to obtain a date of personal hearing.ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C) No.3319 of 2025, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (Arindam Sinha, Acting Chief Justice and M.S. Sahoo; decided 14.02.2025): An order dated 07.08.2024 made under S.73 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 against the petitioner was challenged as ex parte — the preceding notice showing personal hearing as NA and no reply filed to the Form DRC-01 notice in an audit-initiated proceeding. The Court accepted the NA marking only on the premise that a person liable to pay tax will reply and seek personal hearing, absence of reply meaning the authority presumes no defence; finding indication in the impugned order of possible need for addition, amendment, deletion or modification, it set the order aside, directed the petitioner to communicate a certified copy to opposite party no.3 by 03.03.2025 to obtain a hearing date, and stipulated that omission to communicate would automatically restore the order. Writ petition disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.3319 of 2025

¶3

M/s. Merlin Min Movers, Keonjhar

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Represented by Adv.– Mrs. Kananbala Roy Choudhury, Advocate -Versus-

¶6

Central Board of Indirect Taxes & …. Opposite Parties Customs (CBIC) and others

¶7

Represented by Adv.–

¶8

Mr. A. Kedia, Advocate (Junior Standing Counsel) Mr. Sunil Mishra, Advocate (Standing Counsel)

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶11

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO

ORDER

Order No.

01.

14.02.2025

1. Mrs. Roy Choudhury, learned advocate appears on behalf

¶17

of petitioner and submits, order dated 7^th August, 2024 made under

¶18

section 73 in Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is under

¶19

challenge. She demonstrates from preceding notice that in the

¶20

column of personal hearing it carried remark NA.

¶21

2. She draws attention to impugned order to submit, the

¶22

authority passed the order ex parte. It appears therefrom, it was

¶23

made on surmise and conjecture.

¶24

Page 1 of 3

¶25

3. Mr. Kedia, learned advocate, Junior Standing Counsel appears on behalf of Central revenue and Mr. Mishra, learned advocate, Standing Counsel, for State revenue. Mr. Mishra submits, the proceeding was initiated under section 73 pursuant to audit. Petitioner did not file reply to the notice by Form DRC-01. In the circumstances, there was no occasion to call for personal hearing. The information with the authority was relied upon to duly make impugned order. There should not be interference.

¶26

4. While we accept the authority proceeding initially in issuing the notice indicating that personal hearing is not applicable, our acceptance is on premise that a person liable to pay tax will reply to the notice and seek personal hearing to support statements

¶27

made in defence. Where no reply is supported, the authority proceeds on presumption that there is no defence. However, from impugned order there is indication that there may be necessity for adding, amending, deleting or modifying it. As such, we would want there be opportunity given of personal hearing to petitioner.

¶28

5. Impugned order is set aside. Petitioner will communicate certified copy of this order to opposite party no.3 by 3^rd March,

¶29

Page 2 of 3

¶30

2025, to obtain date of personal hearing. Omission to communicate as directed will automatically restore impugned order.

¶31

6. The writ petition is disposed of.

¶32

(Arindam Sinha) Acting Chief Justice

¶33

(M.S. Sahoo) Judge

¶34

S. Behera

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMANTA BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 17-Feb-2025 18:25:31

¶37

Page 3 of 3

M/S. Merlin Min Movers, Keonjhar v. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs,New Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Merlin Min Movers, Keonjhar v. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs,New Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chetana Trust Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes (Cbdt), Delhi

Dr.Surendra Kumar Satapathy Vs Chief Commissioner of Cgst and Central Excise and Customs , Odisha

M/S Babulu Patel, Sundargarh. Vs Commissioner GST and Central Excise, Rourkela.

M/S. Global Agency and Supply Syndicate, Cuttack Vs Superintendent., Cgst and Central Excise, Cuttack

M/S Saiaditya Engineering,Bbsr Vs Superintendent Cgst and Central Excise , Bbsr II Circle

M/S. S.K.Plywood, Cuttack Vs State of Odisha