Facts of the Case

The Petitioner, M/s. Ashesh Kumar Behuria, approached the High Court of Orissa by filing W.P.(C) No. 27178 of 2022 against the Commissioner, CT & GST, Odisha and another authority.

During the proceedings, an additional affidavit filed by the Petitioner was taken on record. It was subsequently confirmed before the Court that the adjudication order had been uploaded on the portal. In view of the availability of the order on the portal, the Petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to challenge the adjudication order through the statutory appellate remedy.

The Court considered this request and the issue arising from the delay in pursuing the statutory appeal during the pendency of the writ petition.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the Petitioner could withdraw the writ petition after confirmation that the adjudication order had been uploaded on the portal and pursue a statutory appeal against that order.
  2. Whether the Petitioner could seek condonation of delay in filing the statutory appeal by citing the pendency of the writ petition as the reason for such delay.
  3. Whether the appellate authority should consider the application for condonation of delay in accordance with law where the appeal was filed within the time specifically permitted by the High Court.
  4. Whether the High Court had expressed any opinion on the merits of the underlying adjudication dispute.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The Petitioner’s position, as reflected from the order, was that after confirmation that the adjudication order had been uploaded on the portal, the Petitioner should be permitted to withdraw the writ petition and challenge the adjudication order by filing a statutory appeal.

The Petitioner also required liberty to seek condonation of delay by relying upon the pendency of the writ petition as the reason for the delay in approaching the statutory appellate authority.

The judgment is a short procedural order and does not record any elaborate substantive arguments on the merits of the underlying tax dispute. Accordingly, no additional arguments should be attributed to the Petitioner beyond what is reflected in the judicial order.

Respondent’s Arguments

The Opposite Parties were represented by the Additional Standing Counsel. However, the order does not record any detailed or separate substantive arguments advanced by the Respondents concerning the merits of the adjudication order or the underlying tax controversy.

Therefore, it would be inaccurate to attribute any specific detailed contention to the Respondents that is not expressly contained in the order.

Court Order / Findings

The High Court recorded and directed as follows:

  1. The additional affidavit filed by the Petitioner was taken on record.
  2. It was confirmed that the adjudication order had been uploaded on the portal.
  3. In view of this development, the Petitioner was permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to challenge the adjudication order by way of a statutory appeal.
  4. The Court specifically directed that if such appeal was filed not later than 3 November 2022, accompanied by an application for condonation of delay citing the pendency of the writ petition as the reason for delay, the application would be considered in accordance with law by the appellate authority.
  5. The High Court expressly clarified that it had not expressed any view in the matter.
  6. The writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn with liberty in the terms granted by the Court.
  7. The Court also directed issuance of an urgent certified copy of the order as per rules.

Important Clarification

The most important clarification arising from the order is that the High Court did not decide the merits of the adjudication dispute. The Court merely facilitated recourse to the statutory appellate mechanism after the adjudication order was confirmed to have been uploaded on the portal.

Further, the Court did not itself condone the delay in filing the statutory appeal. It directed that where the appeal was filed by 3 November 2022, along with a condonation application citing the pendency of the writ petition as the reason for delay, the appellate authority would consider the matter in accordance with law.

Accordingly, this judgment should not be represented as laying down an absolute proposition that delay must automatically be condoned whenever a writ petition has remained pending. The precise effect of the order is that the Petitioner was granted liberty to file the statutory appeal and seek condonation on the stated ground, with the application to be considered according to law.

The order also does not specify any particular statutory section number. Therefore, inserting a specific provision—such as a particular section of the CGST Act or OGST Act—without independent verification could change or overstate the legal basis of the order.

Section Involved

Specific section number: Not expressly mentioned in the order.

Subject matter involved:
Statutory appeal against an adjudication order; application for condonation of delay; pendency of writ proceedings as the stated reason for delay; withdrawal of writ petition with liberty to avail the statutory appellate remedy.

Link to download the order -https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783326654_1266compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.