top of page

Summary and Analysis of M/s Parle Agro Pvt Ltd vs The Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals)

Case Details:

  • Petition No.: Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 25318/2025

  • Arising From: Impugned final judgment dated 06-01-2025 in STREV No. 49/2024 passed by the Orissa High Court at Cuttack

  • Parties:
    Petitioner:
     M/s Parle Agro Pvt Ltd
    Respondent: The Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals)

Key Proceedings:

  1. Hearing Date: 20-06-2025

  2. Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manmohan (Partial Court Working Days Bench)

  3. Representation:
    For Petitioner:
     Mr. H.G. Dharmadhikari, Ms. Lalita Phadke (Advocates); Mr. Rajesh Kumar (AOR); Mr. Praveen Agnihotri (Advocate)
    For Respondent: Not represented during hearing

Court's Order:

  1. Delay Condoned: Delay in filing the petition was condoned

  2. Notice Issued: Notice to respondent made returnable on 12.09.2025

  3. Hearing: Matter heard only from petitioner's side at this stage

Key Legal Points:

  1. The condonation of delay indicates the Court's willingness to consider the matter on merits despite procedural delay

  2. The issuance of notice suggests prima facie consideration of the petition's merits

  3. The case involves sales tax matters, specifically a revision petition against appellate authority's decision

Judgment Research Format

AspectDetailsCase TitleM/s Parle Agro Pvt Ltd vs. Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals)JurisdictionSupreme Court of India (Civil - Tax Matter)Lower Court OrderOrissa High Court's order dated 06-01-2025 in STREV No. 49/2024Supreme Court ActionCondoned delay; issued notice returnable on 12.09.2025Legal Principle1. Delay may be condoned for sufficient cause
2. Notice indicates prima facie case considerationNext Date12.09.2025

Significant Observations:

  1. The case involves important questions of sales tax law given the parties involved (major FMCG company vs. tax authority)

  2. The Court's condonation of delay suggests the petitioner may have shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing

  3. The three-month period for return of notice allows adequate time for respondent's preparation

  • Picture2
  • Telegram
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2025 Lawcurb.in

bottom of page