Atlas Pvc Pipes Ltd. Vs State Of Odisha

This matter involves a dispute regarding an order dated 23.05.2022, where the Joint Commissioner of CT&GST, Cuttack-I Central Circle, Cuttack (opposite party No.2), rejected an appeal (ARN#AD210421003076Y) filed on 21.04.2021, via Reference No. ZD210522012469R. This appeal contested the Order dated 20.01.2021, passed by the CT&GST Officer, Cuttack-I Central Circle, Cuttack (Opposite Party No.3), under Section 74 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act. The dispute revolves around the propriety of this rejection, and it is being addressed through both virtual and physical modes.

The matter at hand concerns a dispute raised through both virtual and physical channels. It revolves around challenging the propriety of an Order dated 23.05.2022, wherein the Joint Commissioner of CT&GST, Cuttack-I Central Circle, Cuttack (referred to as “opposite party No.2”) rejected an Appeal (ARN#AD210421003076Y) filed on 21.04.2021 against the Order dated 20.01.2021 issued by the CT&GST Officer, Cuttack-I Central Circle, Cuttack (referred to as “Opposite Party No.3”) under Section 74 of the Odisha Goods and Services Act, 2017 (hereafter “the OGST Act”). The petitioner, M/s. ATLAS PVC PIPES LIMITED, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the supply of pipes, initiated this writ application seeking to overturn the impugned order and requesting the Appellate Authority (opposite party No.2) to consider the appeal on its merits.

The petitioner contends that it participated in the proceedings under Section 74 of the OGST Act, during which the CT&GST Officer of Cuttack-I Central Circle (Opposite Party No.3) issued an order on 20.01.2021 demanding a sum of Rs. 8,20,042/-, comprising tax, interest, and penalty, pertaining to the tax periods from 1st April 2019 to 31st March 2020. Discontented with this decision, the petitioner lodged an appeal under Section 107 of the OGST Act on 21.04.2021. It is claimed by the petitioner that although it deposited 10% of the disputed tax amounting to Rs. 39,964/- as per the requirement of sub-section (6) of Section 107, it failed to submit the certified copy of the impugned order along with the appeal memo.

Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Singh, argues that despite filing the appeal electronically, self-attested hard copies of the documents, including the copy of the impugned order obtained from the GST web portal, were provided to the Appellate Authority (Opposite Party No.2). However, on 13.05.2022, the petitioner received a notice (ARN/Appeal Case No. AD210421003076Y) indicating that the appeal was rejected due to the non-submission of the certified copy of the impugned order.

The petitioner contends that it fulfilled all necessary procedural requirements and provided sufficient evidence, both electronically and physically, to support its appeal. Therefore, it seeks relief from the Court to set aside the impugned order and direct the Appellate Authority to consider its appeal on its merits.

The case revolves around a dispute stemming from an Order dated 20.01.2021 issued by the CT&GST Officer, Cuttack-I Central Circle, Cuttack (Opposite Party No.3), under Section 74 of the Odisha Goods and Services Act, 2017 (OGST Act), demanding a sum of Rs.8,20,042/- from M/s. ATLAS PVC PIPES LIMITED (the Petitioner), a company engaged in the supply of pipes, for the tax periods from 1st April, 2019 to 31st March, 2020. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the Petitioner filed an appeal under Section 107 of the OGST Act on 21.04.2021, despite failing to submit a certified copy of the impugned order along with the appeal memo, as required.

The Petitioner contends that although it couldn’t provide the certified copy of the order initially, it did furnish self-attested hardcopies of the relevant documents, including the impugned order, through electronic means. Furthermore, the Appellate Authority (opposite party No.2) issued a notice dated 13.05.2022, seemingly extending the deadline for submission of the certified copy to 21.05.2022. The Petitioner procured the certified copy on 21.05.2022 but was unable to submit it on the same day due to the closure of the Appellate Authority’s office. Despite offering to submit it on 23.05.2022, the Authority refused, claiming to have already rejected the appeal on 23.05.2022 and uploaded the decision on the GST portal.

The crux of the Petitioner’s argument lies in the perceived hyper-technical approach of the Appellate Authority, which they argue has left them without a remedy, especially considering the absence of an Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 at the time. To support their stance, the Petitioner’s counsel cites a previous decision of the court dated 07.06.2021 in the case of Shree Jagannath Traders v. Commissioner of State Tax, Odisha, Cuttack, highlighting a similar issue.

In essence, the Petitioner seeks the setting aside of the impugned order and requests a direction for the Appellate Authority to entertain the appeal on its merits, contending that the technicalities shouldn’t bar them from seeking justice.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:                         

Read Another Case Law:                                      

GST Case law: