M/S. Nirmata Engineering vs The Chairman
2025 Latest Caselaw 1098 Ori

Orissa High Court

M/S. Nirmata Engineering vs The Chairman on 10 July, 2025

Author: Murahari Sri Raman

Bench: Murahari Sri Raman

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                  W.P.(C) No.10840 of 2025
                 M/s. Nirmata Engineering          ....           Petitioner
                 Construction Company Private
                 Limited, Jharkhand
                                    Ms. Kananbala Roy Choudhury, Advocate

                                           -versus-
                 The Chairman, Central Board of     ....     Opposite Parties
                 Indirect Taxes & Customs, New
                 Delhi and others
                                        Mr. Choudhury Satyajit Misra, Senior
                                                          Standing Counsel
                                          CORAM:
                            THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                                             AND
                  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
                                          ORDER

Order No. 10.07.2025

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. This is an application seeking modification of order dated 30 th April, 2025 by granting liberty to the petitioner to file its reply to the show-cause notice dated 26th April, 2021 and 30th June, 2021 received 28th March, 2025.

3. While disposing of the writ petition, this Court accepted the stand of the Department that the service of the notice cannot be validly construed as it was served at the address other than the address where the petitioner is operating its business and a direction was passed upon Mr. Misra, learned counsel appearing for the Department to serve the said documents on the Advocate, who appeared for the petitioner on 28th March, 2025. The aforesaid factum of receiving the show-cause

notice is also admitted in the instant application for modification, but a further prayer is made that while disposing of the writ petition, the Court ought to have given them liberty to file a reply to the show-cause notice and to afford an opportunity of hearing.

4. The tenet of the application on a meaningful reading inculcate a sense in us that the petitioner sought to achieve a thing in an indirect manner which it could not achieve directly. In other words, though the application is captioned as an application for modification of the order dated 30th April, 2025, but in fact it is intended to review and revisit the said order.

5. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. M.P. Mohta, reported in (2007) 1 SCC 457, the Apex Court held that an application for clarification cannot be taken recourse to achieve the result of a review as what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly. In an earlier judgment rendered in the case of Ram Chandra Singh vs. Savitri Devi, reported in (2004) 12 SCC 713, the Apex Court in unequivocal terms held that a party cannot be permitted to seek a review in the guise of a modification/clarification and/or variance of an order.

6. In view of the law as enunciated in the above reports, we do not think that it is a fit case for modification of an order. The Interlocutory Application is thus dismissed. No order as to costs.

                                                                              (Harish Tandon)
Signature Not                                                                   Chief Justice
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANORANJAN
SAMAL
Designation: PERSONAL
ASSISTANT
Reason: Authentication
                                                                               (M.S. Raman)
Location: Orissa High Court,
Cuttack
Date: 11-Jul-2025 19:08:25
                                                                                  Judge
                               MRS/Laxmikant