1 2025:CGHC:56756 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPT No. 173 of 2025 Mahavir Moulds Inida Private Limited Having Its Place Of Business At- 208-209, Tanda Siltara, Raipur District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 493221, Through- Its Director Ankit Singh Aged About-43, Years, Son Of Shri Banbir Singh Resident Of House No.27/125, In Front Of New Hanuman Manidr, New Shanti Nagar, Shankar Nagar, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh, 492007, ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary Commercial Tax-GST Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Superintendent Central Excise And Central GST, Range - I I I, Division- I, Raipur Chhattisgarh, GST Bhawan, Dhamtari Road Tikrapara, Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. -492001 3 - Authorised Officer And Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax Business Intelligence Unit, Nawa Raipur, Division GST, Bhawan, Sector-19, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Commissioner Of Commercial Tax GST Department Office Of The Commissioner Of Commercial Tax, GST Department North Block- Sector - 19, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Principal Commissioner CGST And Central Excise Raipur (C.G.) Office Of The Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, Raipur (C.G.) GST Bhawan Dhamtari Road, Tikrapara Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Siddharth Dubey, Advocate For Respondents 1, 3 & 4/ State: Ms. Anuradha Jain, Panel Lawyer For Respondents 2 & 5 : Mr. AS Kachhawaha, Advocate BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.11.24 11:09:23 +0530 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 21.11.2025 1. Heard. 2. Issue notice to the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents accepts notice on behalf of their respective parties. 4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 5. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking following relief(s):- That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue suitable direction(s), order(s) or writ(s) including writ(s) in nature of Mandamus Certiorari etc. 10.1 Quashing/setting-aside the Show Cause Notice dated 30/10/2025/Annexure P-1. 10.2 Grant any other relief(s) and/or pass any such order(s) that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2 has issued notice dated 30.10.2025 (Annexure-P/1) to the petitioner under Rule 21(e) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act 2017’) alleging therein that he has availed ITC in violation of the provisions of Section 16 of the Act 2017/rules made thereunder. Learned counsel further submits that it has not been specifically mentioned in the aforesaid notice as to which violation has been committed under Section 16 of the Act 2017 or the rules made thereunder. Hence, it is prayed that the petition may be admitted for hearing. 3 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.2 & 5 would submit that in the GST portal, space is very limited to mention the details pertaining to the notice issued by the respondent department. He further submits that though specific fact has not been mentioned in the notice dated 30.10.2025 (Annexure-P/1), but if the petitioner enters his appearance before the respondent authority, then they will provide all the details and relevant documents pertaining to the violation of Section 16 of the Act 2017. He further submits that such documents are very voluminous, therefore, it is not feasible to mention about the documents in the notice or to attach it in the portal. 8. Having considered the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for both the parties, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending, rather purpose of the petitioner would be served, if on his appearance before the respondent authority, they provide all the documents which gave rise to issuance of notice under Section 16 of the Act, 2017, therefore, this petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to enter his appearance before respondent No.2 on 25.11.2025, as the date mentioned in the notice (Annexure-P/1) has already expired, thereafter respondent No.2 is directed to provide all the relevant documents relating to wrongful availment of ITC in violation of provisions of Section 16 of the Act 2017, on which the respondents are relying. Thereafter appropriate order may be passed by the respondent authority in accordance with law, at the earliest. 9. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini