Facts of the Case

M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (BHEL) challenged an order dated 04.03.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner, CT & GST, Territorial Range, Angul, in exercise of Suo Motu Revision powers under Section 79(1) of the Odisha Value Added Tax Act, 2004 read with Rule 119 of the OVAT Rules, 2005 — a pre-GST tax revision, even though the revising authority now carries a combined 'CT & GST' designation.

BHEL's counsel argued that the case was covered by the ratio of earlier decisions of the same High Court (M/s. Maharana Supply & Co. and M/s. R.P. Industry), where similar Suo Motu Revision orders had been interfered with.

The Court held that a notification dated 05.08.2018 made an appeal available under Section 79(7)(b) of the OVAT Act against orders of this kind, distinguishing the earlier precedents relied upon by the petitioner, and relegated BHEL to pursue that statutory appeal, expressly clarifying it had not opined on the merits of the case.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the petitioner's case was covered by the ratio of earlier decisions where Suo Motu Revision orders under the OVAT Act had been interfered with by the High Court.
  2. Whether the petitioner should instead be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy available under Section 79(7)(b) of the OVAT Act.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The impugned Suo Motu Revision order was covered by the ratio decided by the Court in M/s. Maharana Supply & Co. and M/s. R.P. Industry, warranting similar interference by the writ court.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Following the notification dated 05.08.2018, an appeal lay under Section 79(7)(b) of the OVAT Act against orders passed under Section 79(1) by an Additional Commissioner, distinguishing the petitioner's cited precedents on this ground.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court held that, in light of the notification dated 05.08.2018, an appeal was available under Section 79(7)(b) of the OVAT Act against the impugned order, and that the ratio of the cases cited by the petitioner was not applicable to its situation.
  • Since the impugned order was appealable, the petitioner was relegated to pursue that statutory remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
  • The Court expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

Important Clarification

This is an Odisha VAT Act (pre-GST) ruling on availability of a statutory appellate remedy against a Suo Motu Revision order — the 'CT & GST' designation of the revising authority reflects departmental restructuring, not that the underlying dispute is a GST matter. No view was expressed on the merits of BHEL's tax challenge.

Sections Involved

  • Odisha Value Added Tax Act, 2004 — Section 79(1) (Suo Motu Revision) and Section 79(7)(b) (statutory appeal)
  • Odisha VAT Rules, 2005 — Rule 119

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of without a decision on merits — the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy under Section 79(7)(b) of the OVAT Act, with no opinion expressed on the correctness of the revision order.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Orissa at Cuttack
  • Case No.: W.P.(C) No.19363 of 2023
  • Coram: Dr. Justice B.R. Sarangi and Mr. Justice Murahari Sri Raman
  • Date of Order: 21.08.2023

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.