Orissa High Court
M/S. Saryug Gautam Construction … vs The Commissioner on 16 March, 2026
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.20382 of 2025
In the matter of an Application under Articles 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India, 1950
***
M/s. Saryug Gautam Construction Private Limited
A company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956 having
its place of business situated at
MIG House No.:H1-165, Housing Colony
Near Kadru More, P.O.: Harmu, P.S.: Argora
Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand)
Through one of its Director
Anil Kumar Singh,
Aged about 61 years,
Son of Late Saryug Singh,
Resident of 70,
West End Park, Old Sukhdev Nagar
Thana Road, Hehal, P.O.: Hehal,
P.S.: Sukhdeonagar,
District: Ranchi
Jharkhand-834005. … Petitioner
-VERSUS-
1. The Commissioner,
Central Goods and Service Tax &
Central Excise Commissionerate,
Rourkela, KK-42, Civil Township,
Rourkela-769004.
2. The Assistant Commissioner,
Signature Not
Verified
Central Goods and Service Tax &
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR
SETHY
Central Excise, Rourkela-I Division,
Designation: Personal Assistant
(Secretary-in-charge)
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
Rourkela.
CUTTACK
Date: 16-Mar-2026 18:31:45
W.P.(C) No.20382 of 2025 Page 1 of 16
3. The Superintendent,
Central Goods and Service Tax &
Central Excise, Rourkela-I Division,
Rourkela. … Opposite Parties.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioner : M/s. Nitin Kumar Pasari,
Nilamadhaba Rout and
Sharmistha Dash, Advocates.
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Bismaya Ananda Prusty,
Senior Standing Counsel.
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. HARISH TANDON
ANDHONOURABLE JUSTICE
MR. MURAHARI SRI RAMANDate of Hearing : 12.03.2026 :: Date of Order : 16.03.2026
O RDER
The petitioner, a private limited company incorporated
under the Companies Act, 1956 having its place of
business in the State of Jharkhand, has challenged
Order-in-Original dated 4th July, 2024 (communicated to
it on 15th April, 2025) passed under Section 73 and 75 of
the Finance Act, 1994 for the periods pertaining to the
Financial Years 2015-16 and 2016-17 by the
Signature Not Commissioner, GST and Central Excise, Rourkela
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR
SETHY
Commissionerate, Rourkela vide Annexure-7 and
Designation: Personal Assistant
(Secretary-in-charge)
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 16-Mar-2026 18:31:45
W.P.(C) No.20382 of 2025 Page 2 of 16
Demand-cum-Show-cause notices dated 23rd April, 2021
and 30th June, 2021 vide Annexure-4 under the
provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 and the order dated
23rd June, 2025 rejecting the petition for rectification, in
this writ petition. The petitioner beseeches to invoke
power of judicial review under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for grant of following reliefs:
“In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is humbly
prayed that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to:
a) Quash and set aside the impugned Adjudication
Order dated 04.07.2024, bearing No.:28-
29/CCE/S.TAX/RKL/2024-25 issued from File:
C.No.: V(15)/84/S.Tax/Adjn/Commr/RKL/2021
(DIN 20240762WK000000C4B1) (Annexure-7),
passed by the respondent no.1 in purported exercise
of powers under section 73 and section 75 of the
Finance Act, 1994, for the Financial Year 2015-16 to
Financial Year 2016-17 as the same is without
jurisdiction and is being contrary to the settled
principles of law;
b) Quash and set aside the impugned Show Case
notices dated 23.04.2021 (unserved) and
30.06.2021 bearing C.No.V(15)84/S.Tax/Adjn/
Commr/RKL/2021/5130A to 5132A and C.No.:
V(15)203/S.Tax/Adjn/Commr/RKL/2021/7539A
542A respectively (Annexure-4), issued by the
Respondent no.1 in purported exercise of powers
under Section 74(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, for the
Signature Not
Verified
Financial Year 2015-16 to Financial Tear 2016-17,
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR
SETHY
as the same are without jurisdiction and is contrary
Designation: Personal Assistant
(Secretary-in-charge)
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
to the settled principles of law;
CUTTACK
Date: 16-Mar-2026 18:31:45
W.P.(C) No.20382 of 2025 Page 3 of 16
c) Quash and set aside the Rectification Order dated
23.06.2025, bearing C.No.:V(15)203/S.Tax/ Adjn/
Commr/RKL/2021/0096-A, passed by Respondent
no.1, whereby without appreciating the facts of the
case, the rectification petition has been rejected
moreover, the demands have been confirmed against
the petitioner.
d) Pass any other order(s), direction(s) as this Hon’ble
Court deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case and in the interest of
justice.
And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall, as in
duty bound, ever pray.”
Facts:
2. The facts as adumbrated by the petitioner in the writ
petition reveals that during the period prior to
introduction of Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, the
petitioner, a works contractor, while undertaking
construction work, provided services to the
Government/local authorities within the State of Bihar
and State of Jharkhand and its turnover was exempted
from point of taxation in view of Mega Exemption
Notification No.25/2012-ST, dated 20th June, 2012.
However, it took out a Registration Certificate under the
GST Act in the State of Odisha and the Registration
Certificate was issued on 6th January, 2019.
Signature Not
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR
SETHY
Designation: Personal Assistant
(Secretary-in-charge)
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 16-Mar-2026 18:31:45
W.P.(C) No.20382 of 2025 Page 4 of 16
2.1. Being served with notices contemplating proceeding for
adjudication to determine service tax liability under
Chapter-V of the Finance Act, 1994 (for short, “the Act”)
for the financial years 2014-15 to 2015-16 though
replies were submitted on the basis of information
received from the Central Board of Direct Taxes on the
basis of disclosure made by the petitioner in the Income
Tax returns and TDS deductions, an adjudication order
vide Order-in-Original dated 4th July, 2024 (received by
the petitioner on 15.04.2025) under Sections 73 and 75
of Chapter-V of the Finance Act, 1994 has come to be
passed.
3. Sri Nitin Kumar Pasari, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner with the aforesaid facts submitted that the
Commissioner, GST and Central Excise
Commissionerate, Rourkela has transgressed his
jurisdiction by levying service tax on the turnover, which
is not amenable to service tax at all in the State of
Odisha.
3.1. He submitted that the petitioner was never executed any
work inside the State of Odisha prior to 1st July, 2017.
Since the petitioner has never executed any work within
the State of Odisha prior to 1st July, 2017 and merely
because it has been granted Registration Certificate on
Signature Not
Verified
Digitally Signed
6th January, 2019 specifying the date of liability “1st
Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR
SETHY
Designation: Personal Assistant
(Secretary-in-charge)
Reason: Authentication
July, 2017”, the demand raised in Order-in-Original
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 16-Mar-2026 18:31:45
W.P.(C) No.20382 of 2025 Page 5 of 16
dated 4th July, 2024 vide Annexure-7 is arbitrary,
irrational and untenable in the eye of law.
4. Sri Bismaya Ananda Prusty, learned Senior Standing
Counsel appearing for the opposite parties submitted
that the proceeding for determination of tax liability was
initiated based on data received from the Central Board
of Direct Taxes. Based on such data, the Adjudicating
Authority acting on such information regarding works
contract being executed and consideration money being
received by the petitioner, proceeded to raise demand on
premise that the petitioner did not choose to get
registered notwithstanding liability.
4.1. He referred to paragraphs-3.3 of Order-in-Original dated
4th July, 2024, which reads as follows:-
“3.3. In this regard, the Noticee was issued with a letter
vide C.No. IV (38) 510/TPD/UN-
REGD/DGARM/RKL-I/2021/1222-1260 dated
07.04.2021 by the Superintendent, CGST and
Central Excise, Rourkela-I Division, Rourkela
whereby the Noticee was asked to submit self-
certified copies of Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss
Account for the relevant period, self-certified copy of
26-AS/TDS certificates & ITR for the relevant period
and self-certified copies of relevant Work
Orders/contract Agreements etc. However, observing
no reply from the Noticee with respect to the
Signature Not
Verified aforesaid letter dated 07.04.2021, reminder letter
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR
SETHY
bearing C.No.C.NO.IV(38)510/TPD/UN-REGD/
Designation: Personal Assistant
(Secretary-in-charge)
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
DGARM/RKL-I/2021/1397-1436 dated 16.04.2021
CUTTACK
Date: 16-Mar-2026 18:31:45
W.P.(C) No.20382 of 2025 Page 6 of 16
was also issued. Still, the Noticee failed to respond
with respect to the said letters and reminders sent
by the department. Even after extending a fair
chance of proving their contention; the Noticee failed
not only to furnish the asked documents or any reply
but also to put forth any claim of
exemption/abatement or any documentary evidence
on this score. The aforesaid act of Noticee clearly
proves of itsmens-rea for evasion of government
revenue. Therefore, in order to protect the
government revenue, it is imperative on part of this
office to raise the impugned Service Tax demand
upon the Noticee under Section 73(1) of the Finance
Act, 1994.”
4.2. Since the petitioner did not respond and/or failed to
furnish the documents sought for production before the
Adjudicating Authority, there was no option left for the
authority, but to quantify the tax liability based on the
material available on record with respect to financial
years 2015-16 and 2016-17. Therefore, he fervently
prayed to dismiss the writ petition as the petitioner has
not exercised alternative remedy provided under the
Service Tax.
5. Heard Sri Nitin Kumar Pasari, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and Sri Bismaya Ananda Prusty,
learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the
opposite parties.
Signature Not
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR
SETHY
Designation: Personal Assistant
(Secretary-in-charge)
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 16-Mar-2026 18:31:45
W.P.(C) No.20382 of 2025 Page 7 of 16
5.1. On the consent of counsel for the both the parties, the
matter was taken up for final hearing on 12th March,
2026 at the stage of “Fresh Admission”.
5.2. Hearing being concluded on the said date, the matter
was directed to be listed on 16th March, 2026 “for
Orders”. Today the matter being listed, this order has
been passed.
6. Perused the material available on record.
7. On bare reading of the Order-in-Original dated 4th July,
2024 and demand-cum-show-cause notice dated 30th
June, 2021 reveals that the petitioner having failed to
get registered under Section 69 of the Chapter-V of the
Finance Act, 1994, the proceeding of determination of
tax liability was initiated. As the petitioner did not
appear before the authority concerned, the demand-cum-
show cause notice was affirmed on the basis of the
information received from the Income Tax Department
with respect to consideration being received on account
of service rendered with respect to execution of works
contract. As is apparent from the record that the
Adjudicating Authority has not made any independent
inquiry based on the information received from the
Income Tax Department. It is apparent from the
Signature Not Registration Certificate issued in Form GST REG-06
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR
SETHY
Designation: Personal Assistant
under the GST Act that the petitioner was granted such
(Secretary-in-charge)
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 16-Mar-2026 18:31:45
W.P.(C) No.20382 of 2025 Page 8 of 16
certificate on 6th January, 2019 with date of liability
fixed on 1st July, 2017, i.e., the date of introduction of
the Goods and Services Tax Act.
8. Since the adjudicating authority has failed to discharge
his authority by independently inquiring as to whether
the amounts treated to be consideration as per
information received from the Income Tax Department
were relatable to any work executed within the State of
Odisha, this Court is of the view that the finding of fact
recorded by the Adjudicating Authority against the
petitioner is perverse.
9. The petitioner by way of Supplementary Affidavit dated
27.01.2026 filed copy of Order dated 31.10.2025 passed
by the Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and
Services Tax and Central Excise, Ranchi. The recital of
said Order runs as follows:
“4.3. *** The Principal Commissioner, GST and CX
Commissionerate, Rourkela has adjudicated and
confirmed the demand along with interest under
Section 75 and penalty under Section 77(2) and 78
of the said Act. Hence, without going into the merit of
the case, I do not find legal and proper to re-confirm
the same amount of service tax for the same period
of 2015-16 of the same noticee having same PAN
number as it amounts to double taxation. Hence, I
Signature Not drop the demand raised in the impugned SCN for the
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR
period 2015-16.
SETHY
Designation: Personal Assistant
(Secretary-in-charge)
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 16-Mar-2026 18:31:45
W.P.(C) No.20382 of 2025 Page 9 of 16
4.4. Further, as the demand of Service Tax itself has
been found to be unsustainable and has been
dropped on factual and legal grounds, the
consequential demand of interest under Section 75
and penalty under Sections 77 and 78 of the said
Act, also fails to stand. It is a settled principle that
when the foundational tax demand is held to be
invalid, any associated liability for interest and
penalty automatically becomes untenable. In the
instant case, as discussed in the preceding paras
demands for the financial year 2014-15 are not
sustainable on merit and demands for the financial
year 2015-16 are also not sustainable as the said
demands have already been covered in the
adjudication order passed by the Principal
Commissioner, Rourkela vide Order-in-Original
No.28-29/CCE/S.Tax/RKL/2024-25 dated
04.07.2024.”
9.1. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel that another
proceeding for adjudication for the period in question
was initiated by the Commissioner, Central Tax (Audit),
Patna vide Order dated 27.03.2024 and raised the
demand of service tax against the petitioner. The learned
counsel placed on record a copy of final order dated 9th
July, 2025 passed in Service Tax Appeal No.75991 of
2024 by the learned Customs, Excise and Service Tax
Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata
(CESTAT). With respect to period 2016-17 to June, 2017
Signature Not the learned Tribunal held in the case of the present
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR
SETHY
petitioner that “As the Show Cause Notice to the
Designation: Personal Assistant
(Secretary-in-charge)
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 16-Mar-2026 18:31:45
W.P.(C) No.20382 of 2025 Page 10 of 16
appellant has been issued to the appellant on 12.10.2021
by invoking extended period of limitation for the period
2016-17 to June, 2017 as whole of the period is beyond
the normal period of limitation, therefore, no demand is
sustainable against the appellant”.
9.2. It is also brought to our notice that the petitioner has
filed an application for rectification of order dated 4 th
July, 2024 under Section 74 of the Finance Act, which
has come to be rejected on 23rd June, 2025 by the
Commissioner, GST and CX Commissionerate, Rourkela.
10. From the above narration of factual position, as it is ex
facie discernible that the turnover/consideration stated
to have been received with respect to works executed has
been deleted from the purview of adjudication by the
Principal Commissioner at Ranchi, because in the
impugned Order-in-Original dated 04.07.2024
(Annexure-7) the said turnover has been assessed and
the consideration thereof has been made subject to levy
of service tax. Furthermore, the learned Tribunal has set
aside the demand of service tax raised for the period
2016-17 to June, 2017 relating to State of Bihar on the
ground of limitation.
10.1. It is emphasised in the writ petition that Letters dated
Signature Not 07.04.2021 and 16.04.2021 were issued by the
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR
SETHY
Designation: Personal Assistant
Respondent No.3 seeking relevant documents from the
(Secretary-in-charge)
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 16-Mar-2026 18:31:45
W.P.(C) No.20382 of 2025 Page 11 of 16
Petitioner. However, in absence of any reply to the
aforesaid letters, a Show Cause Notice dated 26.04.2021
bearing C.No.V(15)203/S.Tax/Adjn/Commr/RKL/2021/
5130AA to 5132A was issued upon the Petitioner for the
Financial Year 2015-16, which is claimed not to have
served upon the petitioner. The Department proceeded
to issue another Show Cause Notice dated 30.06.2021,
bearing C.No.V(15)203/S.Tax/Adjn/Commr/RKL/2021/
7539A to 7542A upon the petitioner for the Financial
Year 2016-17 which was received by the petitioner via e-
mail on 02.07.2021. It is submitted by the learned
counsel that at this point of time only the petitioner
came to know that a separate adjudication proceeding
had been initiated by the opposite party-Authority.
10.2. Nonetheless having cursory glance at the impugned
Order-in-Original dated 04.07.2024 it is observed that
the demand has been raised in the Rourkela
Commissionerate since the petitioner did not appear
before the Adjudicating Authority with material
document(s) to show that it was not exigible to service
tax in the State of Odisha; as a result of which the
consideration stated to have been disclosed to the
Income Tax Department has been assessed as reflected
in the impugned Order-in-Original.
Signature Not
Verified
Digitally Signed
10.3. It is also perceived that the petitioner had also no
Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR
SETHY
Designation: Personal Assistant
(Secretary-in-charge)
Reason: Authentication
occasion to cite the order of the Principal Commissioner
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 16-Mar-2026 18:31:45
W.P.(C) No.20382 of 2025 Page 12 of 16
at Ranchi and the learned Tribunal which have come to
exist after the impugned order is passed. The claim of
the petitioner that its activity attracted exemption by
virtue of Notification No.25/2012-ST, dated 20th June,
2012. Under such premise, this Court is persuaded to
conceive that the petitioner had no proper opportunity to
justify its claim for exemption as also raise point of
limitation. In view of inadequate opportunity, this Court
feels it expedient to set aside the Order-in-Original dated
04.07.2024 (Annexure-7) as also the Order dated
23.06.2025 rejecting the application for rectification of
said Adjudication Order.
10.4. The petitioner is entitled to one opportunity to furnish
documents including the material furnished before this
Court for the first time. Though alternative remedy exists
to question the veracity of the determination of tax
liability made in the Order-in-Original dated 04.07.2024,
as the petitioner pleads violation of principles of natural
justice for want of service of one of the notices and in
adequate opportunity to present his matter before the
Adjudicating Authority, in view of Tin Box Co. Vrs. CIT,
(2001) 9 SCC 725, this writ petition is entertained in
order to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present
its case.
Signature Not
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR
SETHY
Designation: Personal Assistant
(Secretary-in-charge)
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 16-Mar-2026 18:31:45
W.P.(C) No.20382 of 2025 Page 13 of 16
10.5. It may be relevant to quote from the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Tin Box
Co. Vrs. CIT, (2001) 9 SCC 725:
“1. It is unnecessary to go into great detail in these
matters for there is a statement in the order of the
Tribunal, the fact-finding authority, that reads thus:
“We will straight away agree with the assessee’s
submission that the ITO had not given to the
assessee proper opportunity of being heard.’
2. That the assessee could have placed evidence
before the first appellate authority or before
the Tribunal is really of no consequence for it
is the assessment order that counts. That order
must be made after the assessee has been given
a reasonable opportunity of setting out his
case. We, therefore, do not agree with the Tribunal
and the High Court that it was not necessary to set
aside the order of assessment and remand the
matter to the assessing authority for fresh
assessment after giving to the assessee a proper
opportunity of being heard.”
10.6. In the above view of the matter, this Court feels it
apposite that the petitioner is required to be given one
opportunity to place evidence including those placed
before this Court before the Adjudicating Authority in
the State of Odisha. For this purpose the Order-in-
Original dated 04.07.2024 (stated to have been received
Signature Not
Verified by the petitioner on 15.04.2025) passed by the
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR
SETHY
Designation: Personal Assistant
(Secretary-in-charge)
Commissioner, GST & CX Commissionerate, Rourkela
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 16-Mar-2026 18:31:45
W.P.(C) No.20382 of 2025 Page 14 of 16
(Annexure-7) along with the Order dated 23.06.2025
rejecting the application for rectification is set aside.
Interest of justice shall be best subserved if the
Adjudicating Authority shall pass order afresh by
affording opportunity to the petitioner to establish that if
demand in State of Odisha is allowed to stand would
tantamount to double taxation. This apart, the petitioner
is at liberty to demonstrate that its turnover would fall
within the ambit of Mega Exemption Notification.
Furthermore, it is available for it to show that the
adjudication process as initiated is barred by time. In
order to avail such opportunity, the petitioner is directed
to appear before the said Authority on or before 6 th of
April, 2026 along with copy of this order. On such
appearance, the said Authority may examine the
material placed before him by the petitioner or defer the
proceeding to such other date as he deems suitable.
Needless to say that unnecessary adjournment shall not
be granted to the petitioner and the petitioner is directed
to extend all cooperation during the course of
proceeding. The entire exercise of adjudication process is
directed to be completed within a period of six weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of this order. After
passing Adjudication Order, the same is required to be
communicated to the petitioner forthwith. It deserves no
Signature Not
Verified
Digitally Signed
mention that it is open to the petitioner to raise plea/
Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR
SETHY
Designation: Personal Assistant
(Secretary-in-charge)
Reason: Authentication
ground as is available under law.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 16-Mar-2026 18:31:45
W.P.(C) No.20382 of 2025 Page 15 of 16
11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ
petition is disposed of and pending interlocutory
application(s), if any, is disposed of accordingly, but in
the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
(HARISH TANDON)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(MURAHARI SRI RAMAN)
JUDGE
Signature Not
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR
SETHY
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Designation: Personal Assistant
(Secretary-in-charge) The 16th March, 2026//Aswini/Laxmikant
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 16-Mar-2026 18:31:45
W.P.(C) No.20382 of 2025 Page 16 of 16
