^®
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. |

ORISSA STEVEDORES LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CT AND GST, CUTTACK AND OTHERS.
(Orissa High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

ARINDAM SINHA
SAHOO

Pet. Counsel

J. Sahoo

Kajal Sahoo

Res. Counsel

S. Mishra

Petitioner / Applicant	ORISSA STEVEDORES LTD.
Respondent	DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CT AND GST, CUTTACK AND OTHERS.
Court	Orissa High Court
State	Odisha
Date	Aug 7, 2024
Order No.	W. P. (C) No. 13696 of 2024
Citation	2024(8) TAXREPLY 10958
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 PER 1. Mr. Sahoo, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client had applied for rectification of order dated 30th December, 2023 made under section 73 of Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. He submits, his client can so apply under section 161 in Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The application was rejected by order dated 8th April, 2024. His client was not given opportunity of hearing. He seeks interference. 2. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate, Standing Counsel appears on behalf of revenue and submits, there is no mandate to give hearing on an application for rectification of error apparent on face of the record. Impugned order cannot be said to be adverse to petitioner therefore, there was no question of giving hearing. All that was said is, there was no apparent error and petitioner told that if dissatisfied with the assessment, it may prefer appeal. 3. On query from Court Mr. Sahoo submits, his client’s application is a....