Facts of the Case

M/s Asian Paints Limited filed this writ petition challenging an audit report dated 26.05.2023 and a subsequent notice issued under Section 65(6) of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, directing it to discharge its statutory liabilities as per the audit findings, failing which further proceedings could be initiated. The petitioner objected to certain findings in the audit report, contending it was not liable to be charged for those particular objections.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the writ petition, challenging an audit report and a Section 65(6) OGST Act notice (rather than a final assessment or demand order), was maintainable at this stage.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Contended that, against certain specific objections raised in the audit report, the petitioner was not liable to be charged, and to that extent the demand should not be pressed.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Contended that the writ petition was totally premature, since no final order had yet been passed against the petitioner; the audit report and notice only directed the petitioner to discharge statutory liabilities as per the Act, and any grievance could be raised before the assessing authority in the assessment proceedings, where the petitioner would get an opportunity to be heard.

Court Order / Findings

  • Agreed with the Revenue that the petitioner had not been visited with any final order, only an audit report and notice directing it to discharge liabilities as per the Act and Rules, failing which further proceedings could follow.
  • Held that any grievance regarding the audit report or subsequent notice should be raised before the assessing authority, where the petitioner would have a full opportunity to present its case.
  • Held the writ petition, at this stage, to be premature, and declined to entertain it.
  • Disposed of the writ petition accordingly.

Important Clarification

This is a threshold dismissal on the ground of prematurity — the Court did not examine or decide whether the petitioner's specific objections to the audit findings were correct or not; it simply held that those objections should be raised before the assessing authority once assessment proceedings under Section 65(6) OGST Act actually commence, rather than being litigated by writ petition at the audit-notice stage.

Sections Involved

  • Section 65(6), Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — audit and consequential notice provisions
  • Article 226, Constitution of India — writ jurisdiction, held inappropriate at this premature stage

Decision – In Favour of

The respondents (State Tax Officer/CT & GST department) — writ petition disposed of as premature and not entertained; no ruling was made on the correctness of the audit findings, which remain to be contested before the assessing authority.

Case Details

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; W.P.(C) No. 25486 of 2023; Coram: Dr. Justice B.R. Sarangi and Mr. Justice Murahari Sri Raman; Date of Order: 22.08.2023.

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.