1 2025:CGHC:16084 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPT No. 111 of 2024 Judgement Reserved on- 08.08.2024 Judgement Delivered on 04-04-2025. 1 - M/s Indermani Mineral India Private Limited, Aishwarya Chamber Phase -1 1st Floor, Ge Road Telibandha, Raipur- 492001 Through- Its C.F.O., Mr. Vijay Shekhar Pandey, Aged About 38 Years, S/o Kanhaiya Pandey, R/o Flat No.- 502 Block-B1, Vip Karishma, Near Tv Tower Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Its Principal Secretary, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya -Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Joint Commissioner Of State Office Of The Joint Commissioner, State Tax, Raipur, Divisionb 01, Civil Lines, Raipur ( C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bimal Jain, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anurag Tripathi, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. CAV Order 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Raipur Division 01, Civil Lines, Raipur (CG) 2 whereby confirming the tax demand of INR 42,73,78,516/- and levying interest of INR 46,15,68,818/- and penalty of INR 4,27,37,852/-. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the Petitioner 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 Petitioner, pointing out discrepancies in the GST return following scrutiny of the GST Monthly & Annual Returns for the Financial Year 2018-19. Subsequently, on 26.12.2023, Respondent No. 2 served Show Cause Notice-1 (SCN-1) through FORM GST DRC-01 for FY 2018-19, alleging tax, interest, and penalty based on the identified discrepancies. The Petitioner requested a 30-day extension to reply to Show Cause Notice-1 (SCN-1) on 25.01.2024. On 23.02.2024, the Petitioner responded to SCN-1 in detail, providing all necessary evidence, documents, and reconciliations. Despite this, on 19.03.2024, Respondent No. 2 issued another Show Cause Notice-2 (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 Petitioner 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 Petitioner's reply and without providing an opportunity for a hearing or without demanding details/documents for forming an opinion against the Petitioner, confirming the demand based on both SCN-1 and SCN-2, thus violating principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. It would further submit 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 relied upon decisions of various High 3 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. 3. Per contra learned Counsel for the State would submit that that the petitioner had statutory efficacious alternative remedies available to him which is suppressed by the petitioner in his petition at para 5 of the petition. It is respectfully submitted that the present petition as framed and filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and therefore the same deserves to be dismissed as the 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 thereafter before the Appellate Tribunal as per the provisions of section 107 & 109 of the Chhattisgarh Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rule 108 & 109 of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. It would further submit 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 petitioner failed to submit his explanation and supporting documents with respect to GST Annual Returns (GSTR-9 & 9C) for the Financial Year 2018-19 and time and again sought for adjournment and accordingly after due assessment and going through all the replies filed by the petitioner the order impugned dated 08/04/2024 Annexure-IX has been issued wherein the petitioner has been issued with the tax, interest and penalty of Rs. 93,16,85,186/- (Ninety-Three Crores Sixteen Lakhs Eighty-Five Thousand One Hundred and Eighty-Six). 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost circumspection. 5. 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 petitioner 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 the 4 proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, therefore the plea taken by the petitioner in the instant writ petition is not correct and judgments relied by the petitioner are no help to him. 6. In the case of Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. Versus M/s Commercial Steel Limited reported in 2021 (7) SCR 660 the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that respondents therein had a statutory remedy under Section 107 of CGST Act. Relevant paras are reproduced herein below:- 12. In the present case, none of the above exceptions was established. There was, in fact, no violation of the principles of natural justice since a notice was served on the person in charge of the conveyance. In this backdrop, it was not appropriate for the High Court to entertain a writ petition. The assessment of facts would have to be carried out by the appellate authority. As a matter of fact, the High Court has while doing this exercise proceeded on the basis of surmises. However, since we are inclined to relegate the respondent to the pursuit of the alternate statutory remedy under Section 107, this Court makes no observation on the merits of the case of the respondent. 13. For the above reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court. The writ petition filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed. However, this shall not preclude the respondent from taking recourse to appropriate remedies which are available in terms of Section 107 of the CGST Act to pursue the grievance in regard to the action which has been adopted by the state in the present case. 7. The arguments which have been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are very well to him while filing for statutory appellate remedy. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced herein above, this Court, at this stage, is not inclined to entertain this petition. However, this Court is inclined to grant liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the concerned appellate authority according to the provisions of the Act, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the same shall be decided by the appellate authority in 5 accordance with law within a reasonable period of time without raising objection to limitation. 8. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge sagrika SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.04.07 18:44:55 +0530