Bitchem Asphalt Technologies LTD. vs. Union Of Indai And 4 Ors.

Held

The High Court, while hearing the appeal against the Single Judge's order, acknowledged the issues raised by the appellant. However, the Court found that these issues could be "very effectively decided by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act." The Court noted that the Single Judge had already granted liberty to the appellant to prefer an appeal within 30 days, to be heard on merits without insisting on limitation, and that interim protection would continue until the stay application was considered by the appellate authority. The High Court decided to further extend the period granted to the appellant, directing that if a statutory appeal is preferred within three weeks (21 days) from the date of the judgment, it would be taken up by the appellate authority without insisting on limitation. No coercive steps would be taken against the appellant until the stay application was decided. The Court did not decide the substantive issues raised by the appellant but modified the Single Judge's order by extending the time for filing the appeal.

Facts

The appellant, Bitchem Asphalt Technologies Ltd., is challenging a High Court Single Judge's order that directed them to approach the statutory appellate authority. The appellant had received a consolidated Show Cause Notice dated June 25, 2025, under Section 74 of the CGST Act for financial years 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21. This notice, issued by the Joint Commissioner (Respondent No. 4), alleged a turnover mismatch of approximately Rs. 68.59 Crores, demanding GST of Rs. 12.34 Crores plus interest and penalty. The appellant argued that mandatory pre-notice procedures (GST ASMT-10) were not followed, audit materials were not provided, and no personal hearing was granted. An order confirming the demand was passed by Respondent No. 4 on November 28, 2025.

Key Issues

1. Whether a Proper Officer under Sections 73/74 of the CGST Act could issue a consolidated Show Cause Notice and adjudication order covering multiple financial years. The appellant argued that this practice was improper and that the Single Judge erred by not adjudicating this and other fundamental issues. 2. Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in relegating the appellant to the statutory appellate authority without adjudicating critical issues, including jurisdictional challenges. The appellant contended that issues going to the root of the proceedings, such as the validity of the audit basis and procedural lapses, should have been addressed under Article 226 jurisdiction. 3. Whether the proceedings could be founded on a Central Excise Revenue Audit, given that this body allegedly lacks jurisdiction to audit private companies. The appellant argued that the basis of the notice was flawed. 4. Whether a Show Cause Notice could be issued without first issuing the mandatory notice in GST ASMT-10 Form under Section 61 of the CGST Act. The appellant asserted this as a procedural violation. The revenue did not record specific arguments on these points.