Facts of the Case

M/s Sree Metaliks Ltd., represented by Senior Advocate Mr. S. Ray along with Mr. K.K. Sahoo, filed W.P.(C) No. 35037 of 2023 before the Orissa High Court challenging an order dated 16.09.2023 (Annexure-1) passed by the Commissioner of CT & GST, Odisha and others, concerning refund of an amount claimed by the petitioner under GST law. The matter was heard in hybrid mode on 03.11.2023 by the Bench of the Acting Chief Justice and Justice Murahari Sri Raman, with Mr. Sunil Mishra, Standing Counsel, appearing for the Revenue. The order does not disclose further particulars of the refund claim, the amount involved, or the specific grounds on which refund was denied or restricted.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the writ petition challenging the refund order dated 16.09.2023 should be entertained by the High Court.
  2. Whether the statutory remedy of revision available to the petitioner was an adequate alternative remedy, warranting the Court's refusal to exercise writ jurisdiction.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Senior Counsel for the petitioner pressed the challenge to the impugned order dated 16.09.2023 concerning refund of the amount claimed by the petitioner, seeking interference by the writ court.
  • No specific ground urged by the petitioner beyond the challenge to the refund order itself is recorded in the order, since the matter was disposed of at the threshold on the availability of an alternative remedy.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Standing Counsel for the Revenue did not record any submission beyond appearing to defend the impugned refund order; the disposal turned entirely on the availability of the statutory revision remedy rather than a substantive rebuttal.

Court Order/Findings

  • The Court noted that the impugned order was one relating to refund of an amount, and held that it was not inclined to entertain the writ petition since an alternative remedy of revision against such an order was available to the petitioner.
  • The writ petition was disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue its remedy before the appropriate forum by way of revision, in accordance with law.
  • No findings were rendered on the merits of the refund claim or the impugned order.

Important Clarification

  • Where a GST refund order is amenable to a statutory revision remedy, the High Court will ordinarily decline to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and will relegate the aggrieved party to that alternative forum.
  • Disposal on this ground carries no view on the merits of the refund dispute, and the petitioner remains free to press all its contentions before the revisional authority.
  • Taxpayers challenging GST refund orders should be mindful of the statutory revision mechanism as the primary remedy before approaching the writ court.

Sections Involved

  • Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – governs the refund order impugned and provides the statutory revision remedy the petitioner was relegated to.
  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India – basis of the writ petition, declined to be exercised given the alternative remedy.

Decision – In Favour of

The writ petition was disposed of without adjudication on the refund claim's merits, leaving the petitioner to pursue revision; this cannot be called a win for either side on substance, though procedurally the Assessee retains its right to challenge the refund order through the statutory forum.

Related Case Laws

No directly on-point case notes are currently published on this site.

Case Details

  • Court: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
  • Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 35037 of 2023
  • CNR: Not available on record
  • Coram: Acting Chief Justice Dr. B.R. Sarangi and Justice Murahari Sri Raman
  • Decision Date: 03.11.2023
  • Disposal Nature: Disposed of; petitioner relegated to statutory revision remedy against GST refund order

Link to Download the Order

Download the full judgment (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.