M/S. Vandemataram Projects Private Limited vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

M/s. Vandemataram Projects Private Limited (Petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte order dated August 12, 2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Raipur (Respondent No. 2). This order, passed under Section 73(9) of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax, 2017, assessed the Petitioner's tax liability for April 2019 to March 2020 at Rs. 27,05,764/-, with additional interest and penalty totaling Rs. 50,76,438/-. The Petitioner also challenged a subsequent notice dated October 4, 2025, directing the Bank of Baroda (Respondent No. 3) to place a lien on Rs. 27,05,674/- in favor of the department. The Petitioner claimed the ex parte order was passed without granting an opportunity of personal hearing and that they only became aware of the order in June 2025.

Held

The Court held that a case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution was made out to do complete justice between the parties. While the Petitioner's counsel proposed to deposit the assessed tax liability of Rs. 27,05,764/-, the State counsel objected, citing the expiry of the statutory limitation period for filing appeals. However, considering the Petitioner's willingness to deposit the tax liability and the proposal to transfer the lien amount from the bank to the GST authority, the Court granted the Petitioner an opportunity to prefer a statutory appeal against the order dated August 12, 2024, before the appellate authority within one month from the receipt of the order's copy. The Court directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal on its merits without insisting on the delay, having condoned it on the condition of transferring the Rs. 27,05,674/-. The Petitioner was also directed to apply for the transfer of this amount within 15 days. The Petitioner was granted liberty to raise all available defenses, including the ex parte nature of the order, before the appellate authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex parte order dated August 12, 2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Raipur, under Section 73(9) of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax, 2017, is liable to be set aside for violation of the principles of natural justice due to the absence of a proper opportunity of hearing for the Petitioner for the tax period April 2019 to March 2020? Petitioner's contention: The Petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without affording them an adequate opportunity of hearing, thus violating the principles of natural justice and fair play. They contended that they only learned of the order in June 2025 and that no proper personal hearing was granted prior to its issuance. Revenue's contention: The State counsel argued that the Department had provided sufficient opportunities to the Petitioner, but the Petitioner failed to submit a reply. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot claim a violation of natural justice, and the order does not warrant interference.