M/S. Bhikari Charan Pradhan, Koraput Vs Joint… — GST and Indirect Tax | Orissa HC (2025)

M/S. Bhikari Charan Pradhan, Koraput Vs Joint… — GST and Indirect Tax | Orissa HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order set aside; matter restored to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order, with the petitioner directed to communicate a certified copy of the order to the AO by 25th March, 2025 and obtain a date of hearing.

Issue for consideration

Whether the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal on the ground of delay can be interfered with, given that the appeal was presented out of time against an order passed during the pandemic period and Section 107 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 makes no provision for enlarging the prescribed time for an appeal. +2 more

Court's answer

There is no provision in the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, Section 107, for enlarging the period of prescribed time for an appeal to be entertained; accordingly, the revenue's stand that dismissal of the appeal on ground of delay cannot be interfered with bears substance.

Ratio / Principle

The consequence of the petitioner having lost his right of appeal — being rendered remediless — is not contemplated in law; a person can agitate his contention for issuance of certiorari even after losing the right of appeal, as discussed by the Supreme Court in U.P. State v. Mohd Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86.

Key takeaways

Since the appeal was preferred against an order passed in the period of pandemic, the situation is one in which the Court must exercise its extraordinary power to intervene.ratio¶25
The impugned order is set aside and the matter restored to the Assessing Officer (AO); the petitioner is to communicate a certified copy of the order to the AO by 25th March, 2025 and obtain a date of hearing, whereupon the AO will proceed to pass a fresh order.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (W.P.(C) No.4567 of 2025, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, decided 04.03.2025) by M/s. Bhikari Charan Pradhan, Koraput against dismissal of its GST appeal on the ground of delay. The first summary order in Form DRC-07 had been issued during the pandemic period; the petitioner, having no knowledge of it, preferred the appeal out of time upon learning of the order. The Court observed that there is no provision in Section 107 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for enlarging the prescribed time for an appeal, so the revenue's stand that the dismissal could not be interfered with bore substance. However, holding that loss of the right of appeal does not render a litigant remediless — certiorari remaining available even after loss of the right of appeal, as discussed by the Supreme Court in U.P. State v. Mohd Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86 — and noting that the underlying order was passed in the pandemic period, the Court exercised its extraordinary power to intervene: the impugned order was set aside, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer, and the petitioner was directed to communicate a certified copy of the order to the AO by 25th March, 2025 and obtain a date of hearing, following which the AO was to pass a fresh order. Writ petition disposed of. Coram: Arindam Sinha, Acting Chief Justice and M.S. Sahoo, Judge.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.4567 of 2025

M/s. Bhikari Charan Pradhan, Koraput

…. Petitioner

Represented By Adv. – Miss Itishree Tripathy, Advocate

-versus-

Joint Commissioner of Tax …. Opposite Parties (Appeal), CT and GST Territorial Range, Bolangir and another

Represented By Adv. – Mr. S. Das, Addl. Standing Counsel

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO

ORDER

04.03.2025

Order No.

01. 1. Miss Tripathy, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner

and submits, her client’s appeal was out of time. However, first summary order issued in Form DRC-07 was in the pandemic period.

Her client had no knowledge. Upon coming to know appeal was preferred out of time. It is a clear case of violation of principles of

natural justice. There be interference.

Page 1 of 2

// 2 //

Mr. Das, learned advocate, Additional Standing Counsel

appears on behalf of State and submits, the order was duly communicated online leaving no reason for petitioner to have caused delay in preferring the appeal. On query made he submits, order made by Form DRC-07 was in the Covid period.

In this case, petitioner had sought to avail his statutory remedy of appeal. The appeal was presented out of time. It was preferred against an order passed in the period of pandemic. There is no provision in Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by section 107, for enlarging the period of prescribed time for an appeal to be entertained. As such, revenue’s stand that dismissal of the appeal on ground of delay cannot be interfered with bears substance.

Consequence of petitioner having lost his right of appeal is for petitioner to be rendered remediless. This is not contemplated in law. That a person can agitate his contention for issuance of certiorari even after losing right of appeal had been discussed by the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State v. Mohd Nooh , reported in AIR 1958 SC 86 . Furthermore, the appeal was preferred against an order passed in the period of pandemic. The fact appears to us as being a situation, in which we must exercise our extraordinary power to intervene.

Page 2 of 3

// 3 //

Impugned order is set aside and the matter restored to the Assessing Officer (AO). Petitioner will communicate certified copy of this order to the AO by 25^th March, 2025 and obtain date of hearing. The AO will thereupon proceed to pass fresh order.

6. The writ petition is disposed of.

(Arindam Sinha) Acting Chief Justice

(M.S. Sahoo) Judge

Sks

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 04-Mar-2025 17:19:37

Page 3 of 3