Dismissed

Rajesh Kumar Kar v. Additional Commissioner(Appeals), Cgst, Central Excise and Customs, Bhubaneswar

Orissa HC16 Apr 2026WP(C)/5192/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging rejection of a CGST appeal for 'Delay in submission of appeal' without opportunity of hearing. The Court, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling on exhaustion of statutory remedies, declined to entertain it and dismissed the petition with liberty to pursue remedies under the GST Act.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rajesh Kumar Kar Vs Additional Commissioner(Appeals)… — GST and Indirect Tax | Orissa HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.5192 of 2026

¶2

Rajesh Kumar Kar

¶3

…. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. Jaish Joshi, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Additional Commissioner …. Opposite Parties (Appeals), CGST, Central Excise & Customs, Bhubaneswar and others

¶7

Mr. Mukesh Agarwal, Junior Standing Counsel

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶10

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

¶11

Order No.

¶12

ORDER 16.04.2026

¶13

1. Challenging the Order dated 27^th January, 2026 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Central Excise & Customs, Bhubaneswar, opposite party No.1, this writ petition has been filed.

¶14

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Orderin-Original dated 3^rd February, 2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Sambalpur-I Division, Sambalpur, opposite party No.2 being passed without proper appreciation of written submission filed opposing demand- cum - show-cause notice dated 29^th September, 2023, the petitioner filed application for rectification of order, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 29^th July, 2025.

¶15

3. The petitioner assailed both the orders before this Court in W.P.(C) No.33624 of 2025. The said writ petition was disposed of

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

by order dated 9^th January, 2026 granting leave to withdraw and pursue grievance before the appropriate forum, which led to filing of appeal. The appeal came to be rejected on 27^th January, 2026 with the reason “Delay in submission of appeal”.

¶18

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order so passed by the appellate authority without giving opportunity of hearing suffers vice of Section 107(8) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Since the order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice, the order warrants interference in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶19

5. Mr. Mukesh Agarwal, learned Junior Counsel appearing for the opposite parties opposed entertainment of this writ petition against the Order-in-Appeal, as alternative efficacious remedy is available under the statute. He would submit that the appellate authorities are empowered to consider the issue of violation of principles of natural justice.

¶20

6. Heard Mr. Jaish Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mukesh Agarwal, learned Junior Counsel appearing for the opposite parties.

¶21

7. At the outset it may be apposite to observe that the aspect of violation of principles of natural justice can be considered by the Appellate Authority/Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal. Whether the Appellate Authority on the facts and in the circumstances of the case has issued notice to the party concerned before rejecting the Appeal can very well be appreciated on perusal of record by the Tribunal. Therefore, such disputed question of fact is to be left for the appropriate authority to consider. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Radha

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

Krishan Industries Vrs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2021) 3 SCR 406, held, inter alia, that where an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person, the High Court ought to restrain itself from exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and when a right is created by statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is made clear that this rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion.

¶24

8. In view of such enunciation of principles by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, this Court desists from entertaining this writ petition questioning the legality of the appellate order. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner, if so advised, to approach appropriate forum as available under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rules framed thereunder.

¶25

9. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition along with the pending Interlocutory Application (s), if any, shall stand dismissed.

¶26

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER MRS/Laxmikant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 17-Apr-2026 18:03:05

¶30

Page 3 of 3

Rajesh Kumar Kar v. Additional Commissioner(Appeals), Cgst, Central Excise and Customs, Bhubaneswar

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rajesh Kumar Kar v. Additional Commissioner(Appeals), Cgst, Central Excise and Customs, Bhubaneswar

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S1 Security Services India Private Limited.,Bhubaneswar Vs State of Odisha

Bikash Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Srujeet Khuntia Vs State of Odisha

M/S. Shovan Steel Product, Bargarh Vs the Commissioner Commercial Tax (C.T) and Goods and Services Tax (G.S.T), Cuttack

M/S Civic Constructions (I) Private Ltd., Chandrasekharpur, Khorda Vs the Comnr of Commercial Taxes and Gst, Odisha, Cuttack

Saraswati Sishu Mandir, Braja Bihar, Kalahandi Vs Ito, Exemption Ward, Sambalpur