[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
M/S. Deesha Enterprise vs The Principal Commissioner Of Central ... on 16 April, 2026
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.8290 of 2026
M/s. Deesha Enterprise ... Petitioner
Mr. Adhiraj Mohanty, Advocate
-Versus-
The Principal Commissioner of Central ... Opposite Parties
Goods and Services Tax and Central
Excise Bhubaneswar Zone and others
Mr. Bismaya Anand Prusty, Senior
Standing Counsel
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
Order No. 16.04.2026
01. 1. Assailing the Order-in-Original dated 1st August, 2023 passed by
the Deputy Commissioner, CGST & CX, Keonjhar Division and
the order dated 4th August, 2025 passed in Form GST DRC-07A
passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Keonjhar Division for the
Assessment Year April, 2014 to March, 2015, the petitioner has
filed this writ petition craving to invoke provisions under Article
226 of the Constitution of India:
"It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that in the facts and
circumstances aforesaid, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be
pleased to:
A. Admit the writ petition,
B. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, Order
or Direction quashing and setting aside the Form GST DRC-
07A (Ref. ZD210825003809E dated 04.08.2025) and directing
deletion of the demand from the Electronic Liability Register,
being arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Sec.127 of the
Finance (No-2) Act, 2019.
C. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order
or Direction quashing and setting aside the Form GST DRC-13
dated 14.10.2025 and directing immediate vacation of the bank
account attachment at Axis Bank, Barbil Branch.
D. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Opposite Parties to
give full effect to the SVLDRS-4 Discharge Certificate
(No.L150320SV400024 dated 15.03.2020) and to refrain from
any further proceedings on the same subject matter and period;
And may pass appropriate order/orders deemed fit in the fact and
circumstances of the case;
And for which act of your kindness, the petitioner shall remain ever
pray as in duty bound."
2. The petitioner, partnership firm, approached the authority against
the demand raised for invoking benefits of the Sabka Vishwas
(Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 vide Chapter-V of
the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019. The authority concerned having
entertained the applications filed under the said Scheme issued
discharge certificate on 15th March, 2020 certifying full and final
settlement of the tax dues in terms of Section 127(8) of the
Finance (No.2) Act, 2019.
2.1. It is submitted by Sri Adhiraj Mohanty, learned Advocate that
after such discharge certificate being issued, the opposite parties
issued show-cause notice on 30th September, 2020 and 20th
October, 2020 for the very same tax period(s) for which
certificate has been granted under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy
Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. Despite drawing attention of
the adjudicating authority with respect to such discharge
certificate, the authority concerned proceeded to levy service tax
and interest and imposed penalty for the tax periods from April,
2014 to March, 2015 by raising demand pursuant to Order-in-
Original dated 1st August, 2023. Thereafter, the Form DRC-07A
was uploaded on 4th August, 2025 indicating migration of this
demand to the GST portal and the bank account of the petitioner
has been attached on 14th October, 2025 vide DRC-13.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri
Adhiraj Mohanty that the recourse of the authority concerned to
initiate proceeding for adjudication of tax liability for the self-
same period for which certificate had been granted under the
Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 vide
Chapter-V of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 in favour of the
petitioner is unethical, vulnerable and smacks arbitrariness.
4. Issue notice to the opposite parties.
5. Mr. Bismaya Anand Prusty, learned Senior Standing Counsel
appears and waives issue of notice on behalf of opposite the
parties and submitted that the discharge certificate was confined
to demand qua "Cargo Handling Service", but the impugned
order relates to other activities of services. Therefore, the
contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is
fallacious. However, he seeks four weeks' accommodation to file
counter affidavit in this matter. He is at liberty to do so and the
petitioner is allowed to file rejoinder thereto, if any, within a
week from receipt of copy of such counter affidavit.
6. List this matter on 25th June, 2026.
7. A pertinent question falls for consideration of this Court as to
whether further adjudication can be undertaken for the same
period for which full and final settlement of tax has been arrived
under Section 127 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019. The
petitioner, having made out a prima facie case in its favour, is
entitled to interim order.
7.1. The petitioner is directed to deposit the amount of tax as
reflected in the summary of the order creating demand in Form
GST DRC-7A (Annexure-10) within a period of two weeks from
date. In the event of such deposit being made, the authorities
shall be restrained from taking coercive action against the
petitioner in pursuance of the recovery notice in Form GST
DRC-13, dated 14th October, 2025 (Annexure-1). Needless to
observe that on compliance of such direction, the authority
concerned shall take immediate step to revoke the attachment
vide Form GST DRC-07A dated 4th August, 2025 (Annexure-
10).
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA
Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 17-Apr-2026 18:03:05 Laxmikant
