Ajay Kumar Singh vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court held that the order passed by Respondent No. 2 on 03.08.2021, imposing a penalty of Rs. 97,31,303/- as service tax and issuing a notice for its deposit, is an appellable order under Section 107 of the GST Act. The Court found that an efficacious statutory alternative remedy was available to the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable. The Court dismissed the petition but granted the petitioner liberty to take recourse to the available legal remedies. The specific grounds raised by the petitioner regarding the lack of notice and opportunity of hearing were not directly adjudicated upon due to the availability of the alternative remedy.

Facts

The petitioner, Ajay Kumar Singh, challenged a notice dated 03.08.2021 issued by Respondent No. 2, Joint Commissioner CGST and Central Excise. This notice directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 97,31,303/- under Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner contended that no notice was issued and no opportunity of hearing was provided before passing the impugned order, which demanded service tax after 9 years. The petitioner also stated that a deposit of 7.5% of the total amount is required for filing an appeal, prompting the filing of this petition. Respondent No. 2 argued that multiple notices were issued to the petitioner between February 2020 and November 2020, providing sufficient opportunities. The State/Respondent No. 1 opposed the submissions of Respondent No. 2.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned notice dated 03.08.2021, demanding payment of Rs. 97,31,303/- under Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994, is vitiated by a lack of prior notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that no notice was issued and the order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing, demanding service tax after a significant delay of 9 years. The petitioner also highlighted the financial burden of the mandatory 7.5% deposit for filing an appeal. Respondent No. 2's Contention: Respondent No. 2 contended that several notices were issued to the petitioner on various dates (05.02.2020, 19.02.2020, 05.03.2020, 05.08.2022, 07.08.2020, and 04.11.2020), indicating that sufficient opportunities were provided. Respondent No. 2 suggested that the petitioner could file a reply to the notice, which would be considered by the authorities in accordance with the law. Respondent No. 1's Contention: Learned counsel for the State opposed the submissions made by Respondent No. 2.