[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
M/S. P.D. Agarwal vs State Tax Officer on 20 April, 2026
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 8727 of 2026
M/s. P.D. Agarwal, Angul .... Petitioner
Mr. Bhishm Aluwalia, Advocate
along with Mr. Mukesh Panda, Advocate
-versus-
State Tax Officer, Angul and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Sunil Mishra, Standing Counsel
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
Order No. 20.04.2026
01. 1. The order dated 11th March, 2026 passed in a proceeding
under Section 74 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
and Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 as uploaded in DRC-
07 imposing the liability towards the tax, penalty and interest is
assailed in the instant writ petition, primarily on the premise that the
order is bereft of any reason and in fact, the statements made in the
show-cause notice are replicated in the said order. In other words,
the order is sought to be challenged on the ground that the authorities
have not applied their judicious mind in arriving at the conclusion
but appears to have proceeded with a closed mind and, therefore, the
said order is susceptible to be interfered in exercise of powers of
judicial review enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
2. We further notice that the petitioner had also challenged the
constitutional validity of Rule-86A of the Central Goods and Service
Tax Rules, 2017, so far as it relates to an unbridled power to block
the Input Tax Credit when no fault can be attributed to the assessee
but at the time of hearing of the instant writ petition, Mr. Bhishm
Aluwalia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submits that his client does not intend to press the said prayer for the
time being and will agitate the same in another proceedings that may
be filed, if so advised. He, therefore, seeks a liberty in this regard, so
that the subsequent challenge to the vires of the said provision may
not be decided because this Court is disposing of the instant writ
petition.
3. In view of the above stand, since we are not called upon to
decide the constitutional validity of the said Rules, as the petitioner
intends to abandon such plea, we, therefore, proceed to decide the
instant writ petition on the basis of the other substantive prayer with
the specific observation that in the event, the constitutional validity
of the said rule is assailed in a subsequent proceeding, the order
disposing of the instant writ petition shall not stand in the way of
deciding the same nor will it operate as res judicata.
4. We, thus, proceed to decide the instant matter on the limited
contour of the law, whether the order bereft of any independent
findings and/or reasons can receive any sanction of the Court. It
admits no ambiguity to somewhat settled proposition of law that in
an adversarial system of adjudication of the dispute, providing the
reason is one of the indispensable facets of adjudication. The order
bereft of any reason cannot be said to be an order in the eye of law as
it can be perceived as a thing which does not have the soul and/or
heart. It is one of the fundamental facets of dispensation of justice
that a person must know the reason which led the cause raised by
him to have been decided and/or disposed of and in the event, no
reasons are provided, the said order can at best be said to be a dead
letter, which should not be permitted to occupy the space in the
judicial palace.
5. Time and again, the importance of providing the reason is
highlighted and/or reminded to the authorities and in the event the
order does not contain an independent finding which led to an
ultimate conclusion to have been arrived at, the process by which
such decision has been taken is vitiated and the High Court
exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India can step in.
6. In the instant case, we have been taken to the show-cause
notice issued to the petitioner and the impugned order, wherefrom
we find that the major portion of the facts reflected in the said order
is borrowed and/or replicated from the show-cause notice. It is no
gain saying that the issuance of show-cause notice is to afford an
opportunity to the person against whom the proceeding is
contemplated to put his defence, so that a reasonable opportunity to
defend the cause as ordained under the Fundamental Right principles
is ensured. The authority can thereafter proceed to decide the cause,
taking into account the defence so put forth to the averments made in
the show-cause notice and record its independent finding thereupon.
The instant case does not appear to have been decided following
such basic fundamental principles and there is no hesitation in our
mind that the authority has proceeded with a closed mind and the
order impugned is devoid of any independent finding in determining
the issues.
7. Solely on the ground that the order is a non-speaking order,
the same is hereby set aside. The matter is relegated to the authority
to decide it afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner by following the principle of natural justice in accordance
with law.
8. Since the matter remained pending before this Court, on the
request of Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on
behalf of the Department that some alacrity must be shown in
securing the disposal of the said proceedings, we, therefore, request
the concerned authority to take up the matter on 7th May, 2026 at
11.30 AM. It goes without saying that the petitioner shall cooperate
and assist the authority in disposing of the said proceeding and shall
not unnecessarily seek for an adjournment unless necessitated by
unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances.
9. With these observations, the instant writ petition is disposed
of.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
Digitally Signed (M.S. Raman)
Designation: Senior Stenographer Judge
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 27-Apr-2026 13:53:59
S. Behera
