p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.4971 of 2026 Vedanta Limited …. Petitioner Represented by Adv.– Mr. Rudra Prasad Kar, Senior Advocate Mr. Subash Chandra Sahoo, Advocate -Versus- Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Represented by Adv.– Mr. Sunil Mishra, Standing Counsel CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. ORDER 19.03.2026 01. 1. The instant writ petition at the behest of the petitioner in assailing the order dated 7th January, 2026 is primarily founded on the assertion that the Commissioner of CT and GST, Odisha has failed to exercise the power conferred under Section 17 (7) of the Odisha Entry Tax Act, 1999 without recording any reasons in support thereof. p. 2 2. It is sought to be contended by Mr. Rudra Prasad Kar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the order is bereft of any reasons and proceeds simpliciter on the factum of issues involved in the appeal, which is yet to be decided by the Odisha Sales Tax Tribunal. 3. Mr. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite parties-Department vehemently opposes and arduously submits that the order does not warrant any interference. 4. We had an occasion to peruse the observations made in the impugned order wherefrom it appears that the said Commissioner vividly replete the issues involved in the said case and further recapitulated the fact that the appeal is pending before the Odisha Sales Tax Tribunal, Cuttack and surreptitiously jumped to the conclusion that since it involved violation of multiple statutory provisions, any order of stay would tantamount to interference with the said appeal which is yet to be decided on merit. Section 17 (7) of the said Act empowers the Commissioner to stay realization either in part or full any amount of tax or interest or penalty, as the case may be, where a dealer or a person has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal under sub-section (1) thereof. p. 3 5. Once the power is conferred upon the Commissioner to pass an order of stay of realization pending the second appeal, it is preposterous to suggest that the Commissioner shall refuse to exercise such power simpliciter on the ground that the order of stay would not be appropriate for the reason that certain observations have to be made on the merit of the case. Once the power is so conferred, any observation made by the authority is restricted to the limited consideration relating to stay of the realization having no impact on the merit of the second appeal pending before the Tribunal. It is merely a tentative finding having no persuasive impact or effect on the adjudication to be made in the appeal pending before the Tribunal. It is further evident from the meaningful reading of the provision that the power to stay realization is conferred upon the Commissioner to be exercised pending the appeal and, therefore, we are unable to comprehend the observation that since the appeal is pending, any observation touching upon the merit would affect the independent adjudication of the issues by the said Tribunal. 6. It is trite law that once the power is conferred upon the authority to be exercised in a given situation, it is an ardent duty of the said authority to decide the same in the manner as intended in the p. 4 legislation. In the event the finding returned by the Commissioner is accepted that once the appeal is pending before Tribunal, it would not be appropriate at this stage to go into the merit or to record any finding is accepted, it would frustrate the very object of sub-section (7) of Section 17 which confers power upon the Commissioner to exercise while the second appeal is pending before the Tribunal. 7. Since the order though running into several pages does not contain the requisite reasons as ordained in sub-section (7) of Section 17 of the said Act, we have no other option but to set aside the same as the process by which such adjudication is made appears to be in violative of the said statutory provision. The order impugned is, thus, set aside and the matter is remitted to the Commissioner to rehear the said application after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, if necessary, and pass order by recording a proper reason in accordance with law. 8. For abundant precaution, we hereby make it clear that we have not entered into the merit of the said application and, therefore, it is open to the Commissioner to take an independent decision without being influenced by any observation made hereinabove. p. 5 9. With the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is disposed of. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge S.K. Guin/PA