Disposed¶25

M/S Orissa Stevedores Ltd., Cuttack v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), Cuttack

Orissa HC18 May 2026WP(C)/7225/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa Stevedores Ltd. v. DCIT Circle 1(1), Cuttack and others; W.P.(C) No.7225 of 2026; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; order dated 18.05.2026; income-tax refund; giving effect to NFAC/CIT(A) appellate order dated 22.08.2025 under Section 250, Income Tax Act, 1961; AY 2009-10; Section 154 rectification; recomputed refund Rs.4,97,13,903; CPC portal TDS-fetch technical error; ITBA helpdesk Ticket No.3359003 dated 08.05.2026; writ petition disposed as nothing remained for adjudication; pending IAs disposed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; refund of the recomputed net amount of Rs.4,97,13,903/- pursuant to the appellate order dated 22nd August, 2025, with the refund process activated (actual generation dependent on resolution of the CPC portal ticket). ¶25

M/S Orissa Stevedores Ltd., Cuttack Vs Deputy Commissioner of… — Income Tax | Orissa HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether anything remained for adjudication in the writ petition after the DCIT, Circle 1(1), Cuttack re-computed the refundable amount giving effect to the appellate order dated 22nd August, 2025 and the refund process was activated.

¶25

Court's answer

Since the refundable amount had been re-computed by the DCIT, Circle 1(1), Cuttack giving effect to the appellate order dated 22nd August, 2025 under Section 250 of the IT Act, and the process had been activated for refund of the recomputed amount, nothing remained for adjudication and the writ petition stood disposed of.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

As a result of disposal of the writ petition, all pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by M/s. Orissa Stevedores Ltd. assailing the order dated 11th December, 2025 (Annexure-3) of the DCIT, Circle 1(1), Cuttack giving effect to the CIT(A)/NFAC order dated 22nd August, 2025 under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2009-10 (original demand of Rs.6,26,76,150 per assessment order dated 30th March, 2015). While a Section 154 rectification application (filed 13th February, 2026) and the writ petition (filed 5th March, 2026) were pending, the DCIT passed a fresh giving-effect order on 4th May, 2026 re-computing the net refund at Rs.4,97,13,903/-. The Department reported a CPC portal technical error preventing refund generation (Incident/Ticket No.3359003 dated 08.05.2026, unresolved by CPC, Bangalore). Holding that the refund had been re-computed and the refund process activated, the Bench (Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice M.S. Raman) found nothing remained for adjudication and disposed of the writ petition, with all pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.7225 of 2026

¶2

M/s. Orissa Stevedores Ltd.

¶3

…. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. Jagabandhu Sahoo, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Kajal Sahoo, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

…. Deputy Commissioner of Income Opposite Parties Tax Circle 1(1), Cuttack and others

¶7

Mr. Avinash Kedia, Junior Standing Counsel

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶10

Order No.

¶11

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN ORDER 18.05.2026

¶12

01.

¶13

1. Assailing the order dated 11^th December, 2025 vide Annexure-3 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), Circle 1(1), Cuttack, whereby the order dated 22^nd August, 2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the IT Act”) pertaining to the assessment year 2009-10 was sought to be given effect to, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition invoking provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶14

2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that challenging the assessment order dated 30^th March, 2015 vide Annexure-1 raising a demand of Rs.6,26,76,150/pertaining to the assessment year 2009-10, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

opposite party no.2, which was disposed of by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi vide order dated 22^nd August, 2025. In order to give the effect to the order of the appellate authority, re-computation was undertaken by the Assessing Officer and an order was passed under Section 250 of the IT Act by the DCIT, Circle 1(1), Cuttack by determining refundable amount to the tune of Rs.2,24,58,935/-.

¶17

2.1. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an application dated 13^th February, 2026 for rectification under Section 154 of the IT Act requesting the authority concerned to consider the actual relief allowed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal).

¶18

2.2. It is submitted that since the same was pending consideration, this writ petition was filed on 5^th March, 2026. During pendency of the writ petition, the DCIT, Circle 1(1), Cuttack has passed an order under Section 250 of the IT Act giving effect to the appellate order on 4^th May, 2026 by re-computing the net amount refundable at Rs.4,97,13,903/-.

¶19

3. On 19^th March, 2026, when the matter was taken up, on the request made by the learned Junior Standing Counsel who appeared for the Department-opposite parties, this matter got adjourned for obtaining instruction.

¶20

4. Today, when the matter was taken up, learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing for the Department furnishes a copy of the instruction in Court today, serving copy thereof on the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, which is taken on record. The said instruction reads as under:-

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

“In this case, order giving effect to CIT (A)’s order was passed manually on 04.05.2026, resulting in refund of Rs.4,97,13,903/-. The CPC portal system due to technical error is not fetching TDS details and amount. As a result further proceeding is Not possible due to CPC portal error. In view of the above an Incident (Ticket) Number-3359003 dated 08.05.2026 was raised in ITBA helpdesk. That incident is yet to be resolved from the CPC, Bangalore.

¶23

When the incident/Ticket is resolved, then only refund can be generated.”

¶24

5. Heard learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner and learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing for the Departmentopposite parties.

¶25

6. In view of the aforesaid instructions as the refundable amount has been re-computed by the DCIT, Circle 1(1), Cuttack in order to give effect to the order passed in appeal dated 22^nd August, 2025 under Section 250 of the IT Act, and the process has been activated for refund the amount recomputed, there remains nothing for adjudication in the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶26

7. As a result of disposal of the writ petition, all pending Interlocutory Application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶27

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication MRS/Laxmikant Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 19-May-2026 16:59:30

¶30

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶31

Page 3 of 3

M/S Orissa Stevedores Ltd., Cuttack v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), Cuttack

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Orissa Stevedores Ltd., Cuttack v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), Cuttack

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

Rajesh Kumar Swain Vs State of Odisha

M/S Makar, Bhubaneswar Vs Commissioner of Sales Tax, Ct and Gst, Cuttack

Ajit Kumar Pati Vs the Principal Commissioner, Cgst and Central Excise, Bhubaneswar, Khurda

Pabitra Swain Vs State of Odisha

Saroj Kumar Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Narayan Chandra Dash Vs the Principal Commissioner Cgst and Central Excise, Bhubaneswar