Disposed¶27

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

Orissa HC13 Feb 2025WP(C)/3429/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: writ petition; CGST & Central Excise and Customs, Odisha; order-in-original quashed; registration certificate; diagnostic centre; medical practitioner; Odisha Council of Medical Registration; financial years 2015-16 and 2016-17; appeal dismissed for non-pre-deposit; refund of pre-deposit; perverse finding; Orissa High Court at Cuttack; W.P.(C) No.3429 of 2025; decided 13.02.2025; Arindam Sinha, Acting Chief Justice; M.S. Sahoo, Judge.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order-in-original dated 28th June, 2024 set aside and quashed; petitioner held entitled to refund of the pre-deposit, with liberty to apply producing certified copy of the order. ¶27

Dr.Surendra Kumar Satapathy Vs Chief Commissioner of Cgst and Central Excise and Customs , Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order-in-original dated 28th June, 2024 set aside and quashed; petitioner held entitled to refund of the pre-deposit, with liberty to apply producing certified copy of the order.

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order-in-original dated 28th June, 2024, resting on the finding that petitioner's diagnostic centre registration certificate was valid only from 8th November, 2018 to 7th November, 2023, warranted interference by the Court. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

There was a mistake of omission on part of petitioner in not disclosing his registration certificate showing he was a registered medical practitioner on and from 2nd May, 1972; the omission was understandable because the certificate already stood disclosed in the other proceeding, both proceedings having been launched almost simultaneously, so petitioner presumed the information was with revenue.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order-in-original is set aside and quashed; it matters little that the appeal therefrom was dismissed on ground of omission to put in pre-deposit.

¶26

Key takeaways

Petitioner is entitled to refund of the pre-deposit; he will duly apply for it and has liberty to produce certified copy of this order in support of his application.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Orissa High Court (Arindam Sinha, Acting Chief Justice and M.S. Sahoo, Judge), by order dated 13.02.2025, disposed of W.P.(C) No.3429 of 2025. The petitioner, a medical practitioner registered since 2nd May, 1972 with the Odisha Council of Medical Registration, Bhubaneswar and running a diagnostic centre, was proceeded against for financial years 2015-16 and 2016-17; the second proceeding was dropped and the first terminated in a demand by order-in-original dated 28th June, 2024, which recorded a finding that his registration certificate was valid only from 8th November, 2018 to 7th November, 2023. His appeal was dismissed on 31st December, 2024 for alleged omission to pre-deposit, although the pre-deposit had in fact been made. Holding the petitioner's non-disclosure of his 1972 registration certificate to be an understandable mistake of omission — the certificate already standing disclosed in the other proceeding launched almost simultaneously — the Court set aside and quashed the impugned order-in-original and held the petitioner entitled to refund of the pre-deposit, with liberty to apply furnishing a certified copy of the order.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.3429 of 2025

¶3

Dr. Surendra Kumar Satapathy

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Represented by Adv.– Mr. Diganta Das, Advocate

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

Chief Commissioner, CGST & …. Opposite Parties Central Excise and Customs, Odisha and others

¶8

Represented by Adv.– Mr. A. Kedia, Advocate (Junior 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.

13.02.2025

1. Mr. Das, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner

¶17

and submits, his client is a medical practitioner. He had registration

¶18

granted on 2^nd May, 1972 by Odisha Council of Medical Registration, Bhubaneswar. He suffered issuance of two notices against him for financial years 2015-16 and 2016-17. The proceeding under second notice was soon dropped. However, proceeding under first notice terminated in a demand. His client

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

preferred appeal. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 31^st December, 2024 on alleged omission to pre-deposit. He points out from page-53 that the pre-deposit was made.

¶21

2. Mr. Das submits, also impugned order-in-original dated 28^th June, 2024 carries perverse finding of his client’s registration certificate having period of validity from 8^th November, 2018 to 7^th November, 2023. The certificate is in respect of his client’s diagnostic centre. He seeks interference.

¶22

3. Mr. Kedia, learned advocate, Junior Standing Counsel appears on behalf of revenue and submits, petitioner himself submitted the registration certificate in respect of his diagnostic centre. As such, the order-in-original was made on basis of it. There was omission by petitioner to disclose his registration certificate, disclosed in the writ petition at page-17. Mr. Das submits, his client’s registration certificate obtained on 2^nd May, 1972 was considered in the other proceeding, dropped.

¶23

4. There appears to be mistake of omission on part of petitioner, in not having disclosed his registration certificate, to show he was a registered medical practitioner on and from 2^nd May, 1972. We see obvious reason being that it already stood

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

disclosed in the other proceeding, both of which were launched almost simultaneously. Hence, it is understandable that petitioner presumed the information was with revenue.

¶26

5. Impugned order in original is set aside and quashed. As such, it matters little that appeal therefrom was dismissed on ground of omission to put in pre-deposit. Petitioner is entitled to refund of the pre-deposit. He will duly apply for it and has liberty to produce certified copy of this order in support of his application.

¶27

6. The writ petition is disposed of.

¶28

(Arindam Sinha) Acting Chief Justice

(M.S. Sahoo)

Judge

S. Behera

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMANTA BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 13-Feb-2025 18:04:49

¶34

Page 3 of 3

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sankarsan Das Vs the Collector, Bhadrak.

Nirad Kumar Sahoo Vs Union of India

Debendra Nath Behera Vs State of Odisha

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

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

M/S Ocl Iron and Steels Ltd., Kolkata Vs Union of India