1 2025:CGHC:31537-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 434 of 2025 M/s Indermani Minerals India Private Limited Aishwarya Chamber Phase-1, 1st Floor, Ge Road, Telibandha, Raipur, Through Its Director And Authorized Representative Namely Sunil Kumar Agrawal, S/o Mohan Lal Agrawal, Presently Aged Around 52 Years, (Aadhar No. - 96650191308) R/o Aishwarya Residency, G.E. Road, Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1- State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Principal Secretary, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2- The Joint Commissioner Of State Office Of The Joint Commissioner State Tax, Raipur, Division - 01, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Dr. Avinash Pradhan (through Video Conferencing) alongwith Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocates. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 09/07/2025 1. Heard Dr. Avinash Poddar, (through Video Conferencing), Mr.Hari Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Shashank 2 Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State / respondents. 2. By this appeal under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006, the appellant/writ petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 04.04.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(T) No. 111/2024 by which the challenge made by the appellant/writ petitioner to the order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the respondent No. 2, whereby the tax demand of Rs. 42,73,78,516/- and levying interest of Rs. 46,68,818/- and penalty of Rs. 4,27,37,852/-, has been turned down. 3. The facts, in brief, as projected by the appellant/writ petitioner are the appellant is a bulk supplier of a wide range of coal and is engaged in catering to the diversified needs of various industrial sectors throughout the southern and central part of India covering Cement Plants, Power Generation Plants, Steel Mills, etc. via their industrial products dealing and also provides Goods Transport Agency Services. On 21.11.2023, respondent No. 2 issued FORM ASMT-10 notice to the appellant , pointing out discrepancies in the GST return following scrutiny of the GST monthly and annual returns for the Financial Year 2018-19. Subsequently, on 26.12.2023, respondent No. 2 served show cause notice-1 (for short, the SCN-1) through FORM GST DRC-01 for FY 2018-19, alleging tax, interest, and penalty based on the identified discrepancies. The appellant requested a 30-day extension to reply to show cause notice-1 (SCN- 1) on 25.01.2024. On 23.02.2024, the appellant responded to SCN-1 in detail, providing all necessary evidence, documents, and reconciliations. Despite this, on 19.03.2024, respondent No. 2 issued 3 another show cause notice-2 (for short, the SCN-2) for FY 2018-19 via FORM DRC-01, which included new allegations not mentioned in SCN-1 or the ASMT-10 notice. The appellant sought a one-week adjournment on 28.03.2024 to respond to SCN-2 due to the year-end closing of accounts. A detailed reply was submitted on 08.04.2024 against SCN-2. However, respondent No. 2 passed an order on the same day without considering the appellant’s reply and without providing an opportunity of hearing or without demanding details/documents for forming an opinion against the appellant and confirmed the demand based on both SCN-1 and SCN-2, thus violating principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. 4. Dr. Poddar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that since no opportunity of hearing was given, the matter was to be remanded back to the Assessing Authority as it came to be passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. In support of his contention, he places reliance on the decisions of various High Courts i.e. Netcore Solution Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India {2024 (5) TMI 967}, Sree Constructions v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) and Ors {2022 (4) TMI 350}, Basheer Bags v. Deputy State Tax Officer-2 {(2024) 1 TMI 110}. 5. Dr. Poddar further submits that the learned Single Judge completely failed to appreciate that no right of hearing as mandated under Section 75(4) of the GST has been afforded to the appellant, as such, there was complete violation of statutory provisions and non adherence to the statutorily provided opportunity of hearing, as such, when injustice is writ large on the face of the record, there was need of exercise of jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The impugned SCN-2 4 was inter-alia inconsistent with the impugned SCN-1 and the FORM ASMT-10 Notice and introduced new allegations (alongwith some previous allegations) that were never a part of the impugned SCN-1 or the FORM ASMT-10 Notice and also since the SCN-2 was issued after the expiration of the extended timeline as per Section 73 of the CGST Act, read with the various extension Notification issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act. At the time of issuance of SCN-2, since the date of personal hearing was not mentioned, as such, an assessee can safely conclude in the event of any adverse order, the Department would comply with the provisions of Section 75(4). Reliance is placed on the decision of a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Mahindra & Mahindra v. Union of India {WA No. 172/2024, dated 10.04.2024} and a Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Bharat Mint & Allied Chemicals v. Commissioner Commercial Tax {Writ Tax No. 1029/2021, dated 04.03.2022}, Lari Almira House v. State of U.P. & Others {2023 SCC OnLine All 1880}, and a decision of the Apex Court in Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. v. State of Bihar {(2022) 16 SCC 428}. 6. Per contra, Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State would submit that as the appellant/writ petitioner had statutory efficacious alternative remedies available to him which is suppressed in paragraph 5 of the writ petition, the petition was not maintainable and therefore the same rightly deserved to be dismissed as the appellant/writ petitioner has directly rushed to this Hon'ble Court without exhausting the statutory efficacious alternative remedy of approaching the competent authority against the order impugned i.e. before the Additional Commissioner, State Tax, Chhattisgarh and 5 thereafter before the Appellate Tribunal as per the provisions of section 107 and 109 of the Chhattisgarh Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rule 108 and 109 of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. He further submits that despite the opportunities dated 20.11.2023 and issuance of SCN dated 26.12.2023 and further clarificatory letter dated 19.03.2024 the appellant failed to submit his explanation and supporting documents with respect to GST Annual Returns (GSTR-9 & 9C) for the FY 2018-19 and time and again sought for adjournment and accordingly after due assessment and going through all the replies filed by the appellant, the order impugned dated 08.04.2024 Annexure-IX was issued wherein the appellant has been issued with the tax, interest and penalty of Rs. 93,16,85,186/-. The order passed by the learned Single Judge being just and proper warrants no interference. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost circumspection. 8. From the perusal of the documents filed with the writ petition and order dated 08.04.2024, it is very much clear that the reply filed by the appellant on 08.04.2024 has been duly considered by the Assessing Authority and prior to the passing of the impugned order the Assessing Authority has provided proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant, and as such, the plea taken by the appellant in the writ petition is not correct and judgments relied by the appellant are no assistance. When the appellant/writ petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy, as stated above, there was no reason for the appellant to approach this Court in a haste. The learned Single Judge has already granted liberty to the appellant to file an appeal before the 6 concerned appellate authority according to the provisions of the Act, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and it has further been directed that the same shall be decided by the appellate authority in accordance with law within a reasonable period of time without raising objection to limitation. We fully concur with the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition and as such, this appeal fails. 9. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed. However, the appellant may take recourse to the alternative remedy available to him under the law, if so advised. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.07.11 11:49:33 +0530