Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Orissa · body

2025 DAILYLAW 4235 (ORI)

JATHINBITRA INFRATECH AND TRADEIMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED v. THE CHAIRPERSON OF CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS (CBEC)

WP(C)/29387/2025 · 2026-01-22

Harish Tandon Cj, Murahari Sri Raman

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.29387 of 2025 Jathinbitra Infratech & Tradeimpex Private Limited …. Petitioner Mr. Jagamohan Pattanaik, Advocate -versus- The Chairperson, Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBIC) and others …. Opposite parties Mr. Avinash Kedia, Junior Standing Counsel CORAM: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. ORDER 22.01.2026 01. 1. The petitioner, a Private Limited Company, engaged in trading of Raw Cashew Nut. The petitioner admits to have deposited an amount of Rs.24,60,399.16 erroneously disclosing as Integrated Goods and Service Tax under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, “the IGST Act”) while filing returns in Form GSTR-3B with respect to transactions effected in December, 2018 (Financial Year 2018-19). 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the transactions being intra-State, the petitioner should have deposited Rs.12,30,199.58 towards Central Goods and Services Tax and the equal amount towards Odisha Goods and Services Tax totaling Rs.24,60,399.16. However, in order to avoid any demand to be raised by the Department, the petitioner has volunteered to deposit entire amount of Rs.24,60,399.16 towards CGST as well as OGST. Therefore, he prayed for refund of the amount erroneously deposited under the IGST Act. p. 2 3. Learned Junior Standing Counsel requested for adjournment on earlier occasions when the matter was taken up to enable him to obtain instructions. 4. When the matter is taken up today, learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing for the Opposite parties fairly submitted on instructions that the statement of the petitioner is true and correct and the Department has received Rs.24,60,399.16 towards CGST as well as OGST and equal amount under the IGST Act for the same transactions. Therefore, he requested to pass appropriate direction to the authority concerned for doing the needful. 5. In view of such conceded position, appreciating the human error committed in depositing the tax of Rs.24,60,399.16 towards IGST in respect of intra-State transactions effected during December, 2018 (Financial Year 2018-19) and taking into of conceded position as aforesaid, this Court disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the opposite parties-competent authority concerned to take effective steps to refund the amount of Rs.24,60,399.16 within a period of two weeks from receipt of copy of this order. 6. As a result of disposal of the writ petition, pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge MRS/Laxmikant Designation: Senior Stenographer