Orissa High Court
M/S. Khanna Engineering vs The Commissioner Of Ct & Gst on 18 February, 2025
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha, M.S. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 3055 of 2025
M/s. Khanna Engineering, Rourkela .... Petitioner
-Versus-
The Commissioner of CT & GST, .... Opposite Parties
Cuttack and others
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioner : Mr. C.R. Das, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. S. Mishra, Standing Counsel &
Mr. A. Kedia, Junior Standing Counsel
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO
JUDGMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing and judgment: 18th February, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARINDAM SINHA, ACJ.
1. Mr. Das, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and
submits, his client had filed petition dated 4 th September, 2024 seeking
passing of order in Form GST MOV-09. The truck carrying
consignment was detained on 5th July, 2024. There was urgency for his
client to conclude the consignment. Hence on 5th July, 2024 itself his
client paid Rs.5,37,656/- and got released the truck. However, the
detention was illegal. There was no order made within a period of seven
days from the date of service of the notice, as provided by sub-section
(3) in section 129, Odisha Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. Hence,
the petition.
2. He submits, by impugned order dated 26th September, 2024 the
petition stood rejected as devoid of merit. It does not bear a reason that
can be acceptable in law. He reiterates, no order was passed within
period of seven days from date of service of the notice and hence, the
rejection of the petition by impugned order is bad. He seeks
interference.
3. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate, Standing Counsel appears on
behalf of State revenue. He submits, on 5th July, 2024 itself, petitioner
paid the penalty to compound the offence. The proceeding was dropped
there and then. The truck stood released. Petitioner after having
admitted his liability cannot be allowed to turn around and seek
adjudication on merits. It is an abuse of the process.
WPC no.3055 of 2025
4. Mr. Kedia, learned advocate, Junior Standing Counsel appears on
behalf of Central revenue.
5. We find disclosed in the petition Form GST MOV-07 dated 5th
July, 2024. In it there is reflection of calculation of applicable penalty
under clause (a) of sub-section (1) in section 129. The amount is
Rs.5,37,656/-, which petitioner says he paid and State revenue
confirms, he did. In the circumstances, we have a situation where
petitioner admits the notice having been served and payment of penalty
on calculation made, all done on the date of detaining the truck, i.e. 5 th
July, 2024.
6. Sub-section (5) under section 129 says, on payment of amount
referred in sub-section (1), all proceeding in respect of the notice
specified in sub-section (3) shall be deemed to be concluded.
Proceeding under sub-section (3) was initiated by the notice, received
by petitioner. This happened on detaining his truck. There was
calculation of penalty to be paid. It was in the proceeding commenced
by the notice. Petitioner paid the penalty. Sub-section (5) came into
operation. It is not necessary for us to adjudicate on whether in spite of
payment of the required penalty an order was required to be made under
WPC no.3055 of 2025
sub-section (3) because on the payment, by operation of sub-section (5),
the proceeding was deemed to be concluded.
7. We find no merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed.
( Arindam Sinha )
Acting Chief Justice
( M.S. Sahoo )
Judge
Arun Mishra
Designation: ADR-Cum-Addl. Principal Secretary
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
WPC no.3055 of 2025
