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 0, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

M/S. Maithan Ispat Ltd vs Union Of India And Others .... Opposite ... on 11 November, 2024

Bench: Arindam Sinha, M.S. Sahoo

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                               W.P.(C) No.19702 of 2024

            M/s. Maithan Ispat Ltd.                 ....             Petitioner

                                                      Represented By Adv. -
                                                   Mr. R.P. Kar, Sr. Advocate
                                        -versus-

            Union of India and others               ....      Opposite Parties
                                                      Represented By Adv. -
                                            Mr. S. Mishra, Standing Counsel
                                         Mr. A. Kedia, Jr. Standing Counsel
                                 CORAM:
                   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
                                           AND
                     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO
                                          ORDER

11.11.2024 Order No.

03.

1. Mr. Kar, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, impugned in the writ petition is, inter alia, adjudication order dated 29th April, 2024 rejecting his client's claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC) as barred by limitation. He submits, there was central notification extending the time and now the State has issued ordinance notified on 29th October, 2024 as published by authority in the Odisha Gazette Extraordinary. He seeks interference and restoration of his client's claim. On query from Court he submits, his client had not preferred appeal and came before this Court. Page 1 of 2

// 2 //

2. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate, Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State Revenue and Mr. Kedia, learned advocate, Junior Standing Counsel, for Central Revenue.

3. Mr. Mishra submits, departmental procedure stands formulated requiring petitioner to apply restoration.

4. In view of aforesaid impugned order dated 29th April, 2024 is set aside and quashed. Petitioner has moved Court invoking writ jurisdiction on not having filed appeal. In the circumstances, circular dated 15th October, 2024 by Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, requiring petitioner to apply for rectification is to be complied with. This observation is on noticing that the circular was issued after the writ petition was presented. Considering departmental procedure is now in place for petitioner to comply with in having impugned order rectified and time for making the application is still available to petitioner, we dispose of the writ petition accordingly.

5. The writ petition is disposed of.

(Arindam Sinha) Signature Not Verified Judge Digitally Signed Signed by: JYOTIPRAVA BHOL Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA (M.S. Sahoo) Date: 11-Nov-2024 18:15:12 Judge Jyoti Page 2 of 2