Sreyasri Motors vs. The Ct & Gst Officer And Others
(Orissa High Court, Odisha)

Case Law
Petitioner / Applicant
Sreyasri Motors
The Ct & Gst Officer And Others
Orissa High Court
Mar 23, 2022
Order No.
W.P.(C) No.6600 of 2022
TR Citation
2022 (3) TR 5524
Related HSN Chapter/s
Related HSN Code


1. This matter is taken up by virtual/physical mode.

2. Assailing the orders dated 1st November, 2021 passed under Section 73 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, ‘OGST Act’) by the Deputy Commissioner of CT & GST Sambalpur-I Circle, Sambalpur pertaining to the tax periods from April-2019 to March, 2020 (financial year 2019-20), April 2020 to June, 2020 (financial year 2020-21) and July 2020 to September, 2020 (financial year 2020-21), the Petitioner has questioned the legality and validity.

3. Counsel for the Petitioner alleged that huge demand to the tune of ₹ 11,21,538/-, ₹ 10,90,810/- and ₹ 2,09,08,724/- respectively for the tax periods as aforesaid have been raised by the CT & GST organization on the specious plea that excess input tax credit has been claimed in the return in Form-GSTR-3B vis a vis Form-GSTR-2A . It is argued by the counsel for the Petitioner that the mismatch as alleged by the Deputy Commissioner of CT & GST pertaining to aforesaid three tax periods is on account of typographical error committed by the official of the proprietorship concerned. It is submitted that reasonable opportunity to rectify such error, crypt in while feeding onto the computer system during preparation of return, was not given. Therefore, counsel for the Petitioner sought to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct the Revenue Authority to reconcile.

4. Mr. Sunil Mishra, Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for CT & GST organization opposed such a direction, as the officer namely, Deputy Commissioner of CT & GST, Sambalpur-I Circle, Sambalpur has become functus officio after finally passing assessment order under Section 73 of the OGST Act. Hence, interfering with the assessment order at this juncture would not be just and proper for this Court to issue writ of mandamus. Arguing further, Mr. Mishra, Addl. Standing Counsel submitted that the Petitioner’s remedy lies before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the OGST/CGST Act.

5. Both the counsels conceded to the availability of the aforesaid statutory alternative remedy. However, counsel for the Petitioner points out that since it was prosecuting its case before this Court, the period of limitation as stipulated under sub-section (1) of Section 107 has elapsed by now. The counsel for the Petitioner further places on record the fact that the Petitioner has been served with the assessment order in November, 2021, she stated that the period of limitation is protected vide order 10th January, 2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020. To such submission, counsel for the CT & GST organization has no objection.

6. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties and scrutinized the record, we are of the opinion that the proper forum for the Petitioner would be to approach the Appellate Authority rather than invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution before this Court. Accordingly, the Petitioner is permitted to file Appeal under Section 107 of the OGST Act with a application for condonation of delay and if filed within a period of four weeks from today, the question of limitation shall not be pressed by the revenue keeping in view that the Petitioner was prosecuting its case in this Court and also the order(s) of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

7. Counsel for the Petitioner further brings to the notice of this Court that during pendency of the writ petition, the bank account of the Petitioner was under attachment for the three assessment periods. Vide order dated 11th March, 2022, the attachment order pertaining to tax period July 2020 to September, 2020 stood rectified. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the CT & GST submitted that the attachment order for said period has been withdrawn, while remaining in operation for the other two tax periods.

We are not inclined to interfere with such attachment orders, however the same shall be considered by the assessing officer/competent authority on the Petitioner satisfying statutory requirements including predeposit for filing of appeal.

8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

  • Home
  • /
  • caselaw
  • /
  • sreyasri motors vs the ct GST officer and others orissa high court

BUSY is a simple, yet powerful GST / VAT compliant Business Accounting Software that has everything you need to grow your business.

phone Sales & Support:

+91 82 82 82 82 82
+91 11 - 4096 4096