Case Title: M/s. Parija Enterprises v. State of Odisha and Others
Court: High Court of Orissa at Cuttack
Petition Number: W.P.(C) No. 23365 of 2024 (I.A. No. 1346 of 2025)
Category: Delay in filing appeal – Natural justice – Pandemic period
Date of Judgment: 30 January 2025
Relevant Sections: Section 107, Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (pari materia to Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017)
Facts (Paras 1–5)
The petitioner, M/s. Parija Enterprises, challenged the rejection of its delayed appeal against a summary assessment order (Form DRC-07) passed during the Covid-19 pandemic. The petitioner contended that it was unaware of the order during the pandemic and filed the appeal as soon as it came to know. The State opposed, arguing that the order had been duly uploaded online and prior notices were issued even before the pandemic, thereby leaving no excuse for delay.
Questions before the Court
Whether the writ petition could be entertained to set aside the dismissal of an appeal filed belatedly, where the order under challenge was passed during the Covid-19 period, despite the absence of any statutory power under Section 107 of the OGST Act to condone such delay.
Observations (Paras 6–7)
The Court noted that while Section 107 of the OGST Act does not permit enlargement of the prescribed time for appeal, the peculiar facts—specifically that the assessment order was issued during the pandemic—warranted judicial intervention. Referring to U.P. State v. Mohd. Nooh (AIR 1958 SC 86), the Bench emphasized that even if a statutory right of appeal is lost, a person cannot be left remediless when principles of natural justice are violated. The Court held that the petitioner’s situation justified exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
Judgment (Paras 8–9)
The Court set aside the impugned appellate order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh decision. The petitioner was directed to submit a certified copy of the judgment to the AO by 17 February 2025, whereupon the AO would fix a date for hearing and pass a fresh order after considering all contentions. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.
Table of Precedents Referred
| Sl. No. | Case Name | Citation | Principle / Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | U.P. State v. Mohd. Nooh | AIR 1958 SC 86 | Even after losing the right of appeal, writ jurisdiction can be invoked when natural justice is violated. |
Between Fine Lines
This ruling reinforces that procedural rigidity cannot override substantive justice. Even when the statute bars condonation of delay in filing appeals under Section 107 of the GST law, courts may intervene to prevent injustice—particularly where pandemic restrictions or administrative lapses deprived taxpayers of fair opportunity. For trade and industry, it underscores the importance of ensuring online communication of orders during extraordinary times and provides relief precedent for pandemic-period defaults.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
