1 2025:CGHC:16353-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TAXC No. 145 of 2024 1 - M/s Piramal Petrolium Private Ltd. Sf-8, Shyam Plaza, Pandri, Raipur (Old Address Ramsagar Para, Raipur), Through Its Director Vaibhav Agrawal, S/o Shri Nand Kishore Agrawal, Aged About 38 Years, Resident H.No. 7,sector -1 Geetanjali Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Commissioner Of Commercial Tax G.S.T. Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Sector -19, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Mool Chand Jain, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, JJ Order on Board (08/04/2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J 1. This is a Reference Application preferred by the petitioner under Section 55 (2) of the CG Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act, 2005’) requiring the Tribunal to refer the question of law. KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2025.04.09 16:36:35 +0530 2 2. The petitioner was subjected to reassessment under Section 22 (1) of the Act, 2005, which was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by way of filing WPT No.228/2022 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court by an order dated 23.3.2023 allowed the writ petition on the legal ground that no assessment order was passed by the respondent which was otherwise required under Section 21 (1) of the Act, 2005, in the absence of which no re-assessment proceedings could have been drawn under Section 22 (1) of the Act, 2005. Accordingly, the order of reassessment dated 26.3.2016 was set aside/quashed. Meanwhile, the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax initiated proceeding under Section 54 of the Act, 2005 and imposed penalty and interest on the petitioner. Against which a first appeal was preferred before the Tribunal which was rejected. Thereafter second appeal was also preferred before the Tribunal, which also met the same fate. The petitioner thereafter moved a reference application under Section 55 (1) of the Act, 2005 before the CG Commercial Tax Tribunal, Raipur, which was dismissed holding that no case is made out for referring the questions of law, which led to filing of the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the reassessment order dated 26.3.2016 has already been set aside by this Court, which has become final, the order passed by the 3 Assistant Commissioner imposing penalty and interest under Section 54 of the Act, 2005 deserves to be set aside and the concerned Tribunal may be directed to refer the question of law to this Court. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel would submit that no case for making reference is made out. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the documents, we are satisfied that the Tribunal is not justified in not referring the question of law to this Court, and the following question of law is formulated for consideration:- “Whether the authorities were justified in imposing penalty and interest under Section 54 of the Act, 2005 on the basis of order of reassessment dated 26.3.2016 ignoring the fact that the reassessment order passed under Section 22 (1) of the Act, 2005 has already been quashed by this Court vide order dated 23.3.2023 passed in WPT No.228/2022 (M/s Piramal Petrolium Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of CG & Others), and which has attained finality? 6. For the foregoing, it is directed that the concerned Tribunal shall make a reference to this Court on the abovestated question of law. 7. With the aforesaid direction, the Reference Application is disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Judge Barve