1 CGHC010163442023 2026:CGHC:27990 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPT No. 177 of 2023 1 - M/s Anil Rice Industries Through Its Partner Shri Anil Kumar Garg, (Tin No.. 22064200437), Registered Office At Mopka, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgahrh. Resident At Gali No. R-6, Vinoba Nagar, Near Jain Mandir, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of Commercial Tax, Mahanadi Bhawan New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner Commercial Tax G.S.T. Bhawan, Sector 19, North Block, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Assistant Commissioner Saluja Vihar, Bhartiya Nagar, Bilaspur Division, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Limited Through The District Marketing Officer, Tilak Nagar, Near Ram Mandir, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner/s : Shri Palash Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Ms. Anuradha Jain, Dy.G.A. For Respondent No.4 : Shri Anadi Sharma, Advocate. NIRMALA RAO 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 07.07.2026 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ, direct and set aside the order dated 29/12/2022 and 28/12/2020 passed by respondent no 2 and respondent no .3 respectively, in the interest of justice. 10.2 Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances may also be provided to the petitioner.” 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of custom milling of rice. He would contend that during the financial years 2014-15 & 2015-16, the petitioner and respondent No.4 entered into an agreement for custom milling of rice. Pursuant to the said agreement, respondent No.4 supplied paddy alongwith jute bags to the petitioner. After milling the paddy, the petitioner packed the custom-milled rice in the same jute bags and supplied it to respondent No.4. He would further submit that respondent No.4 issued a certificate dated 6.2.2021 certifying the purchase of the jute bags. He would contend that respondent No.3, vide order dated 28.12.2020, raised an additional demand towards Entry Tax and directed the petitioner to pay an additional amount of Rs.1,16,166/-. He would submit that since the jute bags were supplied by respondent No.4, and the certificate in that regard has 3 been placed on record, no Entry Tax was payable thereon. He would further submit that, in terms of Notification No.50 dated 28.4.2006, jute bags supplied by a registered dealer are exempt from Entry Tax. According to him, these material facts were not taken into consideration by respondent No.3 while passing the impugned order dated 29.12.2022. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3 would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. She would submit that the petitioner failed to produce before respondent No.3 the purchase invoices issued by respondent No.4 evidencing the purchase of the jute bags from a registered dealer and therefore, the benefit of exemption was rightly denied. She would further submit that the petitioner himself has admitted that Entry Tax on jute bags is payable @1%. Accordingly, she would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4) Learned counsel for respondent No.4 would submit that there is dispute between the petitioner and respondents No.1 to 3. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6) Respondent No.3, vide the impugned order dated 29.12.2022, levied Entry Tax @ 5% on purchase of jute bags. 7) A perusal of the documents placed on record by the petitioner would show that the jute bags were supplied by respondent No.4, 4 a registered dealer. Notification No.50 dated 28.4.2006 provides that where jute bags and jute twine are purchased by a registered dealer from another registered dealer after payment of tax, the entire Entry Tax is exempt. 8) Since it has been contended on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 that the relevant documents were not produced before the respondent authorities, this petition at this juncture is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to submit all relevant documents before the respondent authorities. Thereafter, the concerned respondent shall consider the same and pass a fresh order, in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 9) Accordingly, the order dated 29.12.2022 Annexure-P/1 is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the concerned respondent for fresh consideration in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 10) Accordingly, this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Nimmi