Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

M/S. Dalmia Bharat Limited vs Board For Advance Rulings on 24 February, 2025

Bench: Arindam Sinha, M.S. Sahoo

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                              W.P.(C) No.25130 of 2024
            M/s. Dalmia Bharat Limited,           ....             Petitioner
            Dalmiapuram

                                                    Represented By Adv. -

                                       Mr. Ashok Parija, Senior Advocate
                                               Mr. N.V. Balaji, Advocate
                                              Ms. N.V. Laksmi, Advocate
                                              Ms. Adyasha Kar, Advocate
                                            Mr. Mukesh Panda, Advocate
                                      Mr. Venugopal Mohapatra, Advocate

                                       -versus-

            Board For Advance Rulings-1,          ....      Opposite Parties
            New Delhi and others
                                                     Represented By Adv. -
                                   Mr. Subash Chandra Mohanty, Advocate
                                                (Senior Standing Counsel)
                                              Mr. Avinash Kedia, Advocate
                                                 (Junior Standing Counsel)

                               CORAM:
              THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA,
                       THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
                                          AND
                   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO
                                        ORDER

24.02.2025 Order No.

04. 1. Mr. Parija, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and draws attention to our order dated 3rd January, Page 1 of 4 2025. With reference to subsequent order dated 3rd February, 2025 he submits, therein stands recorded indication of his client's case on merit. He seeks setting aside of impugned ex parte order dated 7th August, 2024, to the proceeding being restored for advance ruling being made.

2. We reproduce below paragraphs-1 and 2 from said order dated 3rd January, 2025.

"1. Mr. Parija, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client is one of two recipients of the surplus in a foreign investor recovering share cost price. Both recipients, on receiving the money, applied for advance ruling on tax payable. He refers to page-160 of the brief to demonstrate from the disclosure that both recipients were given final opportunity of hearing on 5th August, 2024, in tandem at 12.30 P.M. and 1.00 P.M. The advance rulings were made ex-parte. The other recipient moved the High Court of Madras and got the proceeding in respect of it restored. Facts are similar, if not same. His client was also unable to access the videoconferencing, to obtain hearing and since the other proceeding is restored, impugned ex-parte order dated 7th August, 2024 be also set aside and the proceeding restored. His Page 2 of 4 client wants opportunity of hearing. 2. Mr. Parija hands up memo of date disclosing, inter alia, print of screen shot on submission that thereby is evidence of his client not having had access. He also hands up order dated 11th December, 2024 made by a learned single Judge in the Madras High Court, restoring the proceeding in respect of the other recipient. He prays for interference, interim at this stage."

3. Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate, Senior Standing Counsel appears on behalf of revenue and submits, since the other party got restored its proceeding for advance ruling and petitioner being similarly placed, similar order be made.

4. Mr. Parija hands up order dated 11th December, 2024 made by the learned single Judge of the Madras High Court in, inter alia, W.P.(MD) no.23442 of 2024 [(M/s. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited v. Board for Advance ruling and another)]. He reiterates, facts are same. The learned single Judge found that petitioner in that case was not admitted into the video conferencing on 7th August, 2024. His client was next in line and also not admitted.

Page 3 of 4

5. Impugned order is set aside and quashed. The proceeding for advance ruling filed by petitioner is restored. The authority will, upon hearing petitioner, pass fresh order.

6. The writ petition is disposed of.

(Arindam Sinha) Acting Chief Justice (M.S. Sahoo) Judge Prasant Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 25-Feb-2025 17:49:39 Page 4 of 4