1 2025:CGHC:41352 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPT No. 116 of 2025 Gannon Dunkerley and Co Limited, GSTIN 22AAACG1846P1ZJ, through Authorized Representative Mr. Anjani Kumar, Registered Principal Office at N.T.P.C., Korba, Chhattisgarh - 495677 ... Petitioner. versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Commercial Tax, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Additional Commissioner Of State Tax (Appeal) Appellate Authority, Bilaspur Division Ii, Collectorate Campus, Iti Rampur, Korba, Chhattisgarh - 495677 3. Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax Bilaspur Division Ii, Korba-2, Collectorate Campus, Iti Rampur, Korba, Chhattisgarh 495677 ... Respondents. For Petitioner : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Advocate. For Respondents/ State : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Govt. Advocate SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 18.08.2025 With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 1. This petition has been filed against the order dated 19.06.2025 passed in Form GST APL-02 by respondent No.2 by exercising of power under Section 107 of the Chhattisgarh Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short the "Act 2017"), whereby, respondent No.2 has rejected the appeal Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=CHATTISGARH, c=IN Date: 2025.08.19 14:21:48 +0530 2 of the petitioner and affirmed the ex-parte demand order dated 29.04.2024 passed by respondent No.3 in Form GST DRC-07 pertaining to the Financial Year 2018-19. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner/Company having GSTIN/ID 22AAACG1846P1ZJ has filed its annual return for FY 2018- 19 declaring total turnover of Rs.60,97,61,933/- on which total GST amounting to Rs.8,46,61,792/- along with late fees of Rs.21,900/- has been paid. On 11.12.2023, respondent No.3 issued a scrutiny notice in Form GST ASMT-10 for the FY 2018-19 on several points including enquiry on account of various mismatch of returns. On 27.12.2023 respondent No.3 issued a show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 under Section 73 of the Act 2017 and proposed tax liability of Rs.18,77,28,282/- along with interest of Rs.1,87,75,156/- including penalty of Rs.1,87,75,156/-. However, said notice has been issued without any reasons and without providing any opportunity of hearing. On 09.01.2024, the petitioner replied to the said show cause notice. However, by order dated 29.04.2024 (Annexure-P/1) respondent No.3 passed an ex parte demand order imposing liability of Rs.72,28,756/- without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without determining the liability. Being aggrieved by the demand order dated 29.04.2024, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 107 of the Act 2017 along with application for condonation of delay of 26 days in filing said appeal. However, the Appellate Authority i.e. respondent No.2 without assigning any cogent reason and without affording opportunity of hearing summarily rejected the appeal of the petitioner by 3 order dated 19.06.2025 (Annexure-P/2) and in column No.8 reason of rejection has been assigned as "delay in submission of appeal". Hence, this petition. 3. Shri Shobhit Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the ex parte demand order dated 29.04.2024 has been passed by respondent No.3 in an arbitrary manner and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He further submits that even the Appellate Authority/respondent No.2 without examining the cause of delay and without considering that application has been filed within the condonable period as prescribed under Section 107 (4) of the Act 2017 has summarily rejected the appeal of the petitioner. He submits that there was delay of only 26 days in filing the appeal and the Appellate Authority has power to condone the delay if the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the period of three months or six months, as the case may be, and further period of one month. He submits that the appellate Authority has also not considered the mandate of sub section (4) of Section 75 of the Act 2017 which says that opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to Section 107 (12) of the Act 2017 which stipulates that the order of the Appellate Authority while disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision. He submits that in the present case, the impugned order has been passed 4 without following the due procedure of law and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and same is summary in nature. In support of his contention, learned counsel places reliance in the matter of Ramji Kirana Store Vs. State of U.P. {[2023] 156 taxmann.com 600 (Allahabad)} and order passed by this Court in the matter of Tata Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh {[2024] 158 taxmann.com 256 (Chhattisgarh)}. In view of such submission, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to condone the delay of 26 days in filing the appeal and to remit the matter back to the Appellate Authority to the decide the appeal on merits after affording proper opportunity of hearing. 5. Shri Dilman Rati Minj, Government Advocate for the respondents/State opposes the aforesaid submission. However, on being asked, he fairly admits that in the notice under Section 73 of the Act 2017 issued on 27.12.2023 four descriptions have been mentioned in which at serial No.1 description is made with regard to the date by which reply was to be submitted i.e. 29-01-2024. However, in respect of other three columns i.e. date of personal hearing, time of personal hearing and venue where personal hearing will be held, "NA" is mentioned which means no details have been given with regard to said descriptions. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed with the petition carefully. 7. There is inbuilt mechanism in the Act of 2017 for compliance of natural justice. It is provided in the Act that wherever any order is contemplated and any adverse decision is contemplated against anyone, it is mandatory for the Authority to provide an opportunity of hearing. Further, 5 According to Section 75 (4) of the Act 2017 an opportunity of hearing ought to be granted before determination of tax liability. For the ready reference Section 75 (4) is reproduced hereunder:- "Section 75. General provisions relating to determination of tax.- (4) An opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person." 8. However, if any notice is issued without compliance of the said mandate of law, determination is made and demand order is issued and subsequently the matter come up before the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority is required to see whether compliance of said mandate of law is made or not, and while disposing of the appeal, it is required to pass reasoned and speaking order as per mandate of Section 107 (12) of the Act 2017 which reads as under:- "Section 107. Appeals to Appellate Authority- (12) The order of the Appellate Authority disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision." 9. Further, when an appeal is filed within the period of three months or six months, as the case may be, and further period of one month from the date of limitation, the Appellate Authority ought to have examined whether the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause within the prescribed period of limitation. However, in the present case, from 6 perusal of impugned order, it is explicit that no such factor has been considered and no reason has been assigned. 10. Generally when any application or appeal is preferred within a condonable period the concerned Authorities are expected to consider the delay in liberal manner. Although in the tax statute the limitation is interpreted in strict manner but when the legislature itself has prescribed extended period of time after period of limitation then the Authority ought to have considered such aspect and examined the cause shown by the appellant. 11. Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court has explained the expression 'sufficient cause' on various occasions. It is settled proposition that the expressions 'sufficient cause' should be considered with pragmatism in justice oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day's delay.1 The expressions "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to a party. There cannot be a straitjacket formula for accepting or rejecting explanation furnishing for the delay caused in taking steps. However, the Authority should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with the cause shown and reject the petition by a slipshod order in over jubilation of disposal drive.2 12. In the case in hand, according to the petitioner, the appeal was barred by only 26 days. The appellant has duly filed the application for condonation of delay along with appeal before the Appellate Authority 1 See State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Ahmed Jaan [2008 (10) JT 179] 2 See Ram Nath Sao V. Gobardhan Sao [AIR 2002 SC 1201)] 7 and also mentioned sufficient cause for such delay. It is also not disputed that the period of delay has not exceeded the period which is mentioned in Section 107 (4) of the Act 2017 and thereby the same is condonable. Moreover, the Authorised Officer has also sent its proposal to the management and sought approval for challenging the same. 13. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, this Court reaches to the conclusion that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to cause delay in filing the appeal and the impugned order has been passed summarily which requires to be considered on merits. Hence, the delay of 26 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority to pass fresh and speaking order after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in terms of Section 107 (12) of the Act 2017. 14.With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Ajay