M/S. Jay Minerals vs Central Board Of Indirect Taxes .... ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 5035 Ori

Orissa High Court

M/S. Jay Minerals vs Central Board Of Indirect Taxes .... ... on 17 March, 2025

Bench: Arindam Sinha, M.S. Sahoo

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                              W.P.(C) No.7333 of 2025

         M/s. Jay Minerals, BBSR                 ....              Petitioner

                                                Represented By Adv. -
                             Mrs. Kananbala Roy Choudhury, Advocate

                                      -versus-

         Central Board of Indirect Taxes         ....       Opposite Parties
         and Customs, New Delhi and
         others
                                                  Represented By Adv. -
                                    Mr. C.S. Mishra, Sr. Standing Counsel




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


                                        ORDER

17.03.2025

Order No. W.P.(C) no.7333 of 2025 and I.A. no.4241 of 2025

01. 1. Mrs. Roy Choudhury, learned advocate appears on behalf of

petitioner and submits, impugned is order dated 12th December, 2024

issued under section 74 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017

for period commencing from July, 2017 to March, 2024. Referring to,

inter alia, sub-section (10) in section 74 she submits, there is

prescribed period for issuance of notice as within five years, inter alia,

// 2 //

from due date of furnishing of annual return for a particular financial

year.

2. She relies on view taken by a learned single Judge in the High

Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition no.15810 of 2024 (T-Res) on

judgment dated 4th September, 2024 (Veremax Technologie

Services Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax). The

learned judge held, consolidation of multiple assessment years into

single show cause notice contravenes the provisions. She seeks

interference, interim at the stage.

3. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate, Senior Standing Counsel appears

on behalf of revenue and draws attention to definitions section 2(106)

to submit, meaning given to 'tax period', when applied to the show

cause notice brooks no interference. He submits further, as on date of

issuance of the show cause notice, petitioner had obtained registration.

4. Petitioner is relying on view taken by a learned single Judge

against consolidation of tax period. In the circumstances, the writ

petition requires hearing.

5. Counter be filed by 17th April, 2025 as prayed for by Mr.

Mishra. Petitioner may file rejoinder, to be accepted on adjourned date

upon advance copy served.

// 3 //

6. List on 5th May, 2025. Impugned order will remain stayed till

next date of hearing.

(Arindam Sinha) Acting Chief Justice

(M.S. Sahoo) Judge Sks

Designation: Personal Assistant