Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
HARISH TANDON, MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Vedanta Limited – Appellant
Versus
Union of India Represented through the Secretary, New Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.
1. Craving to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against Order-in-Appeal No. 220-221/CUS/CCP/2025, dated 30.09.2025 (issued on 08.10.2025) passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Bhubaneswar (hereinafter referred to as “impugned order”) setting aside the Order-in-Original dated 24.01.2024 of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs Division, Bhubaneswar, giving effect to Order-in-Appeal No. 100-101/CUS/CCP/2023, dated 29.09.2023 (issued on 30.09.2023) of the Principal Commissioner (Appeals) (In- Situ), Bhubaneswar (“Appellate Order” for convenience), the writ petition is filed for grant of following relief(s):
“Under the facts and circumstances, the petitioner, humbly prays:
a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ/order/direction under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India, calling for the records and proceedings pertaining to the impugned Order dated 08.10.2025 under Annexure-1 and after going into the validity and legality thereof, to quash and set aside the same;
b) that this Hon'ble Court may kindly gracious
The doctrine of functus officio limits a quasi-judicial authority's ability to revisit final decisions, ensuring stability and judicial discipline in legal adjudications.
The appellate authority cannot revise its earlier determinations without new grounds, upholding the principle of functus officio in tax matters.
A quasi-judicial authority cannot initiate proceedings on issues already adjudicated by a higher authority, thus reinforcing the principles of administrative discipline and the finality of appellate ....
The court held that claims involving CENVAT credits were extinguished post-approval of the resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, reaffirming jurisdictional limits of the High Cour....
Provisions of Section 11B that it governs refund of duty and interest from the relevant date and not penalty. Considering the provisions of Section 11B (supra), I find that the amount of penalty paid....
Judicial review under Article 226 cannot be restricted by statutory limitations; writ petitions can challenge Orders-in-Original even if appeals are time-barred.
The court ruled that the Principal Commissioner's order was invalid due to failure to consider prior findings and the petitioner's submissions, violating principles of natural justice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
