1 2025:CGHC:61227 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPT No. 164 of 2025 1 - Chhattisgarh State Beverages Corporation Limited Abkari Bhawan, Sunita Park Road, Labhandi, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492012 ... Petitioner versus 1 - Office Of The Principal Commissioner CGST And Central Excise GST Bhawan, Tikrapara, Dhamtari Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001 ... Respondent (Cause title, as taken from CIS) For Petitioner For Respondent : : Ms. Sara Jain, Advocate Mr. Maneesh Sharma, Advocate. (Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 16/12/2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. Issue notice to the respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent accepts notice on behalf of the respondent, hence, issuance of notice to it, is dispensed with. RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.12.17 17:32:08 +0530 2 4. This petition has been preferred by petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned notice dated 19.10.2012 issued by the Respondent and quash all consequential proceedings/assessments/demands/orders arising therefrom. 10.2 Issue a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate order restraining the Respondent, their officers, servants and agents from taking any coercive steps, recovery proceedings, adjudication or other action pursuant to the impugned notice, until final disposal of this petition. 10.3 Declare and hold that (i) CSBCL is not a "clearing and forwarding agent" within the meaning of the Finance Act, 1994; (ii) no service tax is leviable on the transactions in question on that ground; and (iii) the respondent is bound by the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Union of India v. Chhattisgarh State Beverages Corporation, Tax Case No. 6/2009 dated 02.05.2013 on this question of law. 10.4 Award costs of this petition in favour of the Petitioner. 10.5 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which it deems fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. ” 3 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide impugned Show Cause Notice dated 19.10.2012 (Annexure-P/8), the respondent/adjudicating authority has sought explanation as to why service tax from the year 2009 to 2012 should not be recovered along with interest and penalty, treating petitioner to be Clearing and Forwarding Agent (for short ‘C & F Agent’). She next submits that this issue has been decided by learned Division Bench in Tax Case No.06/2009 (Union of India vs. M/s Chhattisgarh State Beverages Corporation) upholding the order of Custom Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) that petitioner could not be considered as C & F Agent for the State Government, despite that, impugned show cause notice has been issued by the adjudicating authority to the petitioner, hence, she prays that instant petition may be admitted for hearing. 6. In reply, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner has already submitted its reply to the show cause notice (Annexure -P/8) but no order has been passed till date by the adjudicating authority. He further submits that the petitioner may raise all grounds before adjudicating authority, therefore, instant petition may be disposed of as prematured. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. Since the petitioner has already submitted its reply to the show cause notice (Annexure -P/8), therefore, it would not be appropriate to consider legality of notice, rather all the grounds raised by petitioner in this petition can be raised by it before the adjudicating authority, thereafter, petitioner may take recourse to law. 4 9. In view of above, I am not inclined to entertain instant petition invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court, hence the same is disposed of granting liberty to petitioner to raise all grounds before adjudicating authority for redressal of its grievance. 10. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. 11. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Rukhsar