^®
TaxReply India Private Limited

GST Library

Best GST Library

Subscription Plans

TaxGPT

GST News | Updates

GST Calendar

GST Case Laws

GST Case Laws Sitemap

GST Notifications, Circulars, Releases etc.

Act & Rules

Act & Rules (Multi-view)

GST Rates

HSN Codes ^New

GST Forms

GST Diary

GST Notebook

GST Fees Manager

GST Council Meetings

GST Set-off Calculator

ITC Reversal Calculator

E-invoice Calculator

Inverted Duty Calculator

GSTR-3B Manual

GSTR-9 Manual

GSTR-9C Manual

Full Site Search

E-way Bill

Finance Bill

GST e-books

TaxReply Support

YouTube Videos

Twitter

Buy Premium Tax Domains

About Us

Our Services

🔒

TaxReply India Pvt Ltd

🔒

^®

Subscribe Free GST updates on...

Subscribe to Best GST Library of India and get ahead of the rest. Click here for plans. | GST Act & Rules e-book Click here. |

AJAY KUMAR SHARMA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE, JHARSUGUDA AND ANOTHER
(Orissa High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

ARINDAM SINHA
SAHOO

Pet. Counsel

Itishree Tripathy

Res. Counsel

Choudhury Satyajit. Mishra

Petitioner / Applicant	AJAY KUMAR SHARMA
Respondent	DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE, JHARSUGUDA AND ANOTHER
Court	Orissa High Court
State	Odisha
Date	Sep 6, 2024
Order No.	WP(C) No. 15862 of 2024
Citation	2024(9) TAXREPLY 12100
Add to Favorites	Add to favorites.
Download Original Order
Print (Full Page)
Print (Judgement Only)

TaxGPT ^Beta

Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

Listen this case in simple words

Audio Timeline

Audio Speed:

AA |

ORDER
ORDER 1. Ms. Tripathy, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, order in original dated 24th June, 2022 is under challenge. All that her client wants is an opportunity of hearing pursuant to he being permitted to file reply to show Order No. 04. cause notice dated 16th August, 2021. She submits further, due to Covid-19 and other reasons the reply could not be filed. 2. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate, Senior Standing Counsel appears on behalf of revenue and opposes the writ petition. He points out, order in original is dated 24th June, 2022. Effective, alternative, statutory remedy could have been availed by petitioner. Not having done so in the prescribed period, the writ petition presented more than two years after impugned order was made. The writ petition does not merit consideration. 3. Ms. Tripathy, in reply draws attention to impugned order to demonstrate that basis for it was information obtained from her client’s income tax return pertain....