Facts of the Case

The petitioner had deposited a certain amount of tax pursuant to an assessment order dated 27.01.2022 passed by the State Tax Officer, CT & GST Circle, Bhubaneswar, demanded under Annexure-3. The petitioner contended that part of this amount related to the pre-GST period and was, therefore, not properly payable, and filed a representation seeking its refund. When this representation went undecided, the petitioner approached the Orissa High Court seeking a direction for its consideration.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a writ petition seeking a direction to consider a bare representation was the appropriate route for claiming refund of pre-GST period tax, or whether the petitioner ought to have filed a formal refund application under law.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The amount demanded and deposited related to the pre-GST period, which the petitioner was not liable to pay, and he had accordingly filed a representation seeking its refund, which the authority had failed to consider.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Counsel for the Revenue contended that if the petitioner sought a refund, he was required to make an appropriate application as per law; approaching the Court by way of a writ petition merely seeking disposal of a representation was not permissible for this purpose.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court agreed with the Revenue, finding that by making an innocuous prayer for consideration of a mere representation, the petitioner was effectively attempting to obtain a refund of pre-GST period tax without following the proper application route, which was not permissible.
  • The Court declined to entertain the writ petition, while granting the petitioner liberty to pursue his remedy — that is, to file the appropriate refund application — before the appropriate forum in accordance with law, if so advised.

Important Clarification

This order does not decide whether the petitioner is, in substance, entitled to a refund of the pre-GST component of the amount deposited — it only holds that the correct procedural route is a formal refund application, not a writ petition seeking disposal of an informal representation. Taxpayers with genuine pre-GST refund claims should ensure they file the prescribed refund application rather than rely on correspondence alone.

Sections Involved

  • Refund provisions under the applicable pre-GST tax law (relevant to the pre-GST period tax in dispute) and the procedural requirement of a formal application, as opposed to an informal representation.

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of without a decision on merits; the writ petition was not entertained, with liberty granted to pursue the correct procedural remedy.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Orissa at Cuttack
Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 12603 of 2023
Coram: Dr Justice B.R. Sarangi and Mr Justice M.S. Raman
Date of Order: 05.05.2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

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.