Authority: Orissa High Court, Cuttack

Order Date: 07‑10‑2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – M/s. Chandan Patra, proprietor Sri Chandan Patra, GSTIN 21BDDPP6208C1Z4; Respondents – Union of India (Secretary, Department of Revenue), Chief Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, and Superintendent GST & Central Excise, Range‑VII, Bhubaneswar.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging an Order‑in‑Original dated 04‑02‑2026 issued by the Superintendent under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act) and the Odisha GST Act.
  • Background: The petitioner executed irrigation works contracts in FY 2019‑20, receiving Rs 26,36,189 (as per Form 26AS) and, according to the Superintendent’s investigation notice dated 30‑06‑2025, allegedly received Rs 73,58,507 from various government organisations without charging GST. The Superintendent issued a Demand‑cum‑Show Cause Notice on 04‑09‑2025 demanding GST of Rs 8,83,021 with interest under Section 50(1).
  • Procedural Timeline:
  • 10‑07‑2025: Notice of investigation served.
  • 14‑07‑2025: Petitioner sought one‑month extension; no response received.
  • 08‑01‑2026: Reminder issued, fixing personal hearing for 27‑01‑2026 and requiring reply by 26‑01‑2026; Form GST DRC‑01 dated 10‑09‑2025 attached.
  • 27‑01‑2026: Petitioner appeared, submitted a detailed manual reply (Annexure‑8) and raised jurisdictional objection; documents were received manually by the Superintendent.
  • 04‑02‑2026: Superintendent issued Order‑in‑Original (Annexure‑2) ignoring the reply and documents.
  • 13‑02‑2026: Petitioner furnished the requested Form 26AS and Running Account Bill (Annexure‑9) after the order had been passed.
  • Legal Issues:

1. Whether the Superintendent violated the principles of natural justice by passing the order without considering the petitioner’s reply dated 27‑01‑2026 and the documents submitted on 13‑02‑2026.

2. Whether a manual reply, not uploaded in Form GST DRC‑06, must be considered under Section 74(9) and Rule 142(4) of the GST Rules.

3. Whether the Superintendent was functus officio after issuing the Order‑in‑Original.

  • Contentions:
  • Petitioner’s Counsel (Adv. Choudhury Satyajit Misra) argued that the reply was duly received, that the order was premature, and that the law does not require electronic filing of the reply; cited Boldrocchi India Pvt Ltd v ST and EMCO Cables (India) Pvt Ltd v Union of India for the principle that a reply, however filed, must be considered.
  • Opposite Party Counsel (Adv. Umesh Chandra Sahoo) contended that the petitioner was afforded audi alteram partem, that the reply was not filed in the portal, and that the Superintendent acted within statutory procedure.
  • Court’s Reasoning:
  • The Court examined the language of Section 74(9) and Rule 142(4), noting that the requirement of “uploaded electronically” applies only to the notice (Form DRC‑01), not to the reply (Form DRC‑06). Hence, a manual reply is valid and must be considered.
  • Citing Boldrocchi India, EMCO Cables, and JMD News & Advertisers v State of Uttarakhand, the Court held that non‑consideration of a duly submitted reply constitutes a gross violation of natural justice.
  • The Court observed that the Superintendent, having issued the Order‑in‑Original on 04‑02‑2026, was functus officio and could not disregard a reply received on 27‑01‑2026.
  • The Court emphasized that procedural fairness is a constitutional requirement and that the mere technicality of electronic filing cannot override the right to be heard.

Final Outcome

  • The Order‑in‑Original dated 04‑02‑2026 is set aside.
  • The matter is remitted to the Superintendent, GST and Central Excise, Bhubaneswar‑VII Range, for fresh consideration of the jurisdictional objection and the reply to the Demand‑cum‑Show Cause Notice.
  • Directions:

1. Petitioner must appear before the Superintendent within 15 days of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.

2. The Superintendent shall fix a hearing date and record all material particulars submitted by the petitioner.

3. The petitioner must cooperate to conclude the proceeding within eight weeks of appearance.

4. No unnecessary adjournments shall be granted.

  • No order as to costs was made.

Topics: GST Enforcement, Natural Justice