Skip to content
Order
  • Library
  • Features
  • About
  • Blog
  • Contact
Get started
Book a Demo

Order

At Order.law, we’re building India’s leading AI-powered legal research platform.Designed for solo lawyers, law firms, and corporate legal teams, Order helps you find relevant case law, analyze judgments, and draft with confidence faster and smarter.

Product

  • Features
  • Blog

Company

  • About
  • Contact

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms

Library

  • Acts
  • Judgments
© 2025 Order. All rights reserved.
  1. Home/
  2. Library/
  3. High Court Of Orissa/
  4. 2024/
  5. November

Debasis Nayak vs. the Chief Comnr, Gst and Central Excise and Customs, Bbsr Zone,bbsr

Decided on 30 November 2024• Citation: WP(C)/29713/2024• High Court of Orissa
Download PDF

Read Judgment


                      IN THE HIGH  COURT  OF ORISSA  AT CUTTACK                   
                                   W.P.(C) No.29713 of 2024                       
                    Debasis Nayak                             Petitioner          
                                                  ….                              
                                                 Represented By Adv.              
                                                                   –              
                                                 Mr. S.S. Padhy, Advocate         
                                          -versus-                                
                    The Chief Commissioner GST and      Opposite Parties          
                                                  ….                              
                    Central Excise and Customs,                                   
                    BBSR Zone, BBSR and others                                    
                                                   Represented By Adv.            
                                                                    –             
                                                Mr. Tushar Kanti Satapathy,       
                                                Senior Standing Counsel           
                                         CORAM:                                   
                        THE  HON'BLE  MR. JUSTICE  ARINDAM   SINHA                
                                            AND                                   
                           THE HON'BLE  MR.  JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO                   
                                           ORDER                                  
                                          30.11.2024                              
           Order No.                                                              
              01.   1.    Mr. Padhy, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner
                                                                 th               
                    and submits, impugned are show cause notice dated 29 September,
                                             th                                   
                    2020, order in original dated 30 March, 2022 and first appellate order
                          th                                                      
                    dated 7 September, 2024. He submits, it will appear from dates of the
                    show cause notice and order in original, the latter was passed beyond
                    time. That is sufficient ground for his client to seek interference.
                                                                    Page 1 of 2   

                                              // 2 //                             
                    2.    Mr. Satapathy, learned advocate, Senior Standing Counsel
                    appears on behalf of revenue and submits, petitioner went before the
                    first appellate authority. The adjudication order has merged in the
                    appellate order. As such petitioner must avail statutory remedy before
                    the Tribunal. Mr. Padhy in reply submits, no reason has been given in
                    the order in original made ex-parte against his client, why it was not
                    possible to be made within the time prescribed. Furthermore, his client
                    had executed work contract of the Government, exempt from tax.
                    3.    Petitioner having elected to obtain statutory remedy must
                    follow through. Contention of revenue is accepted that there has been
                    merger. As such petitioner will be entitled to take all points before the
                    Tribunal. Mr. Padhy submits, his client be given liberty to seek
                    exclusion of time. Petitioner can do so in law and also has liberty to
                    produce website copy of our order in the application for condonation,
                    to                       that petitioner should appeal.       
                      show revenue’s contention is                                
                    4.    The writ petition is disposed of as above.              
                                                     (Arindam Sinha)              
                                                          Judge                   
                                                       (M.S. Sahoo)               
                                                         Judge                    
            Sks                                                                   
    Signature Not Verified                                                        
    Digitally Signed                                                              
    Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI                                                  
    Reason: Authentication                                                        
    Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT                                                   
    Date: 30-Nov-2024 16:31:18                                                    
                                                                    Page 2 of 2