In W.P.(C) No. 15952 of 2023 -ORI HC- Orissa High Court upholds authority of Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Enforcement Unit, to conduct search and seizure operation and pass order of demand under Section 130 of OGST/CGST Act
Justice B.R. Sarangi & Justice M.S. Raman [17-05-2023]

Read Order: M/s. J and T Gems and Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar v. The Dy. Commissioner of State Tax, BBSR and others

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, June 14, 2023: The Orissa High Court has held that Mr. M.K. Pradhan, Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Enforcement Unit, was granted the power and authority by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Enforcement Range, to conduct the search and seizure operation at the premises of M/s. J and T Gems and Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner). The court held that Mr. Pradhan acted within his competency when he passed the order of demand, and imposed a penalty and fine under Section 130 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act (OGST Act)/Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act).

Factual matrix of the case was that the petitioner contended that the same officer, Mr. Pradhan, who conducted the search and seizure, passed the demand order and imposed penalties and fines on the petitioner. The petitioner argued that Mr. Pradhan had no authority to pass the final order and that he acted as the judge of his own cause. Therefore, the petitioner sought the intervention of the court in this matter.

The division bench of Justice B.R. Sarangi & Justice M.S. Raman rejected the contention that Mr. Pradhan, who conducted the search and seizure operation and passed the order of demand, cannot be a judge of his own cause. The bench stated that this principle was not applicable in the present case because the order was passed under Section 130 of the OGST/CGST Act. The bench noted that if the order had been passed under Section 73 or Section 74 of the Act, the situation might have been different.

“In view of the fact that the order impugned is appealable one, this Court disposes of the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to pursue its remedy before the appropriate authority, if it is so advised,” further added the court.