Orissa High Court Directs Vedanta To Reply To Rs. 8.02 Crores SCN

The Orissa High Court has directed Vedanta to reply to the show cause notice in respect of a sum of ₹8,02,84,232 by which the department claims it to be a wrongly availed input tax credit (ITC).

The bench of Acting Chief Justice Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice M.S. Sahoo has observed that Vedanta petitioner will reply to impugned show-cause notice. In it, Vedanta will be at liberty to take all points, including the point of limitation. The authority says and will pass the order by 5th February, 2025. 

In respect of the tax period July, 2017 to March, 2018 there was a discrepancy between his client’s account and the goods and services tax (GST) annual return. It was a discrepancy, of which his client became aware and pointed out to the taxing authorities. The discrepancy was also noticed in the audit directed by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

The jurisdictional officer sought for explanation, pursuant to the audit report. His client furnished an explanation to the satisfaction of the officer. It was duly reported. However, the audit case was not closed but kept pending. 

The assessee contended that the department invoked the extended period of limitation on bare allegations, to issue show-cause notice dated 5th August, 2024 on the last date of the extended prescribed time. 

The court noted that as per the show-cause notice, there is an issue between petitioner-assessee and revenue. Petitioner says it is a discrepancy while revenue says petitioner wrongly availed input tax credit (ITC). Impugned show- cause notice bears record of explanation sought for by the jurisdictional officer, furnished and satisfaction recorded. All the above in respect of a sum of ₹8,02,84,232.

The court disposed of the petition.

Read More: Caramel Popcorn And Now Kerala’s Favourite Snack ‘Pazhampori’ Falls Prey To 18% GST: GST Rate Rationalisation Becomes India’s Dream

Case Details

Case Title: M/s. Vedanta Ltd., Jharsuguda Versus UOI

Case No.: W.P.(C) No.24191 of 2024

Date: 21.01.2025

Counsel For Petitioner: V. Sridharan, Sr. Advocate Mr. Prashanta Kumar Nayak

Counsel For Respondent: Satyanarayan Pattanayak, Advocate

Mariya Paliwala
Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You May Also Like
COST OF EXECUTION WORK FOR ELECTRIC LINES INSTALLATION BORNE BY SERVICE RECIPIENT GST PAYABLE ONLY ON SUPERVISORY SERVICES

COST OF EXECUTION WORK FOR ELECTRIC LINES INSTALLATION BORNE BY SERVICE RECIPIENT GST PAYABLE ONLY ON SUPERVISORY SERVICES

Author: Khushi J Prajapati The Uttar Pradesh Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR)…
Karnataka High Court Directs GST Dept. To Refund Unutilized ITC With Interest

Karnataka High Court Directs GST Dept. To Refund Unutilized ITC With Interest

The Karnataka High Court has directed the goods and service tax (GST)…

Sanction From Govt. Mandatory To Take Cognizance Against Public Servants For Money Laundering Offences: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that the sanction from the government under…