Rulings of Orissa HC under CGST Act

M/s. Aditya Craft & Papers Private vs Principal Commissioner, CGST & Central Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 592

In a recent ruling, the Orissa High Court to examine the jurisdictional validity of initiating assessment proceedings under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax ( CGS T) Act, 2017, particularly in cases involving voluntary reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) prior to the commencement of an audit. The matter is scheduled on June 17, 2025.

The bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice M.S. Raman noted that “Since jurisdictional aspect leading to framing assessment under Section 74 of the CGST Act has been questioned, the matter requires consideration. Adequate number of copies of writ petition be served on the Senior Standing Counsel to enable him to file counter-affidavit.”

Complete Ready to Use PDFs of 200+ Agreements Click here

GST: Orissa HC Condones Delay in Invoking Rule 23 of OGST Rules Considering Willing to pay Late Fee and Penalty

M/s. Lokanath Naik vs Deputy Commissioner of CT and GST CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 580

Lokanath Naik,  the petitioner challenged the Show cause notice issued for cancelling CGST registration.  Rule 23 of OGST deals with revocation of cancellation of registration.A registered person, whose registration is cancelled by the proper officer on his own motion, may 1 [subject to the provisions of rule 10B] submit an application for revocation of cancellation of registration, in FORM GST REG-21 , to such proper officer, within a period of thirty days from the date of the service of the order of cancellation of registration 2 [or within such time period as extended by the Additional Commissioner or the Joint Commissioner or the Commissioner, as the case may be, in exercise of the powers provided under the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 30 ,] at the common portal, either directly or through a Facilitation Centre notified by the Commissioner.

In that view of the matter, the delay in Petitioner’s invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules (OGST Rules) is condoned and the division bench of Chief Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice M.S. Sahoo directed that subject to the Petitioner depositing all the taxes, interest, late fee, penalty etc., due and complying with other formalities, the Petitioner’s application for revocation will be considered in accordance with law.

Step by Step Guide of Preparing Company Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss Account Click Here

Orissa HC Revokes Cancellation of GST Registration upon Petitioner’s Willingness to pay Missed Tax, Interest, Late Fee and Penalty

Rebat Kumar Sahu vs Superintendent, CGST, GanjamII Circle CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 415

In a significant ruling, the Orissa High Court directed the revocation of cancelled Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration of a registrant upon his express willingness to pay all outstanding tax, interest, late fee, penalty and any other sum required to be paid for the department to accept his GST forms.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Arindam Sinha examined the petitioner’s plea in light of the Mohanty Enterprises judgment wherein the Bench condoned the delay invoking proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules to direct the petitioner to deposit all taxes, interest, late fee, penalty etc. while complying with other formalities to effectuate revocation of cancellation of the GST Registration.

Orissa HC Sets aside Proceedings initiated u/s 73 of CGST Act without providing Opportunity of Hearing

M/s. Harekrushna Sahoo vs Chief Commissioner of CT and GST CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 404

In a recent case, the Orissa High Court set aside the proceedings initiated under section 73 of Central Goods and Service Tax ( CGST) Act, 2017 without providing an opportunity to hearing.

Section 61, by sub-section (2) requires consideration of explanation furnished. Sub-section (3) says, in case no satisfactory explanation is furnished, the proper officer may initiate appropriate action under, inter alia, section 73. On query made Mr. Mishra could not demonstrate that in impugned order made under section 73, said reply dated 25th April, 2022 was considered.

GST READY RECKONER: Complete Topic wise Circulars, Instructions & Guidelines Click here

Orissa HC Sets aside Order Passed u/s 74 of CGST due to Jurisdictional Error

Narayanan Pradhan vs Asst. Commissioner, GST and CE CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 231

Mr. Harichandan, advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submitted that the  impugned is show-cause notice dated  February, 2024 carrying purported finding of misstatement made by his client, to underpay the tax issued under sub-section (l) in section 74 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The provision was invoked to avail extended period of limitation but there was no allegation of misstatement in the show cause notice.

A jurisdictional error under GST arises when a tax authority initiates proceedings or takes action beyond its legally defined area of authority. If a state GST officer issues a notice for a case under the Central GST jurisdiction, or vice versa. If a lower authority handles a case meant for a higher authority. If an officer from a different state or region issues a notice. When a case related to a regular taxpayer is handled under the composition scheme.

Challenge against Demand for short payment of GST: Orissa HC Directs to file Appeal u/s 112 of CGST/OGST Act

Choudhury Bibhuti Bhusan vs Joint Commissioner of State Tax CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2291

n a significant case, the High Court of Orissa directed the petitioner to file a GST appeal under Section 112 of Central Goods and Service Tax ( CGST/OGST ) Act, 2017 for the  challenge against the demand for short payment of tax.

Complete Ready to Use PDFs of 200+ Agreements Click here

Mr. Das, advocate, Additional Standing Counsel appeared on behalf of the department. He does not dispute that the writ petition stands covered. The first Division Bench directed a quantum of deposit with liberty to parties inasmuch as, petitioners could avail of their remedy upon constitution of the Tribunal and in event they or any one of them does not do so within time provided upon reconstitution, the department would be free to proceed.

Orissa HC directs GST Dept to Refund Service Tax recovered in excess of Amount approved by Resolution Plan

The Orissa High Court directed the GST department to refund Service Tax Recovered in excess of the amount approved by the resolution plan.

The case of the Petitioner is that it has already paid towards service tax Rs.1,41,12,429.94 and towards GST Rs.1,92,66,932/- for the aforementioned period January to December 2017. It accordingly submits that there has to be a pro-rata reduction of the liability since it is to get only 20.5% of the outstanding amount, which works out to Rs.3,71,87,750/- and a tax payable works out approximately to Rs.45 lakhs. The Petitioner accordingly has calculated the excess tax paid as Rs.2.16 crores approximately and claims this is refund from Opposite Party No.3. In the counter affidavit by Opposite Party Nos.5 and 7 it is clarified that the service tax amount that has been paid is Rs.1,41,12,429.94 and the credit taken in this regard has now been reversed.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates