M/S Gurushree Minerals PVT. LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA
Facts
M/s Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (the petitioner) filed a writ petition before the Chhattisgarh High Court challenging an order dated July 19, 2024, passed by the adjudicating officer. The respondents are various authorities of the Union of India, including the Ministry of Finance, CBIC, Principal Commissioner CGST, and Assistant Commissioner CGST. The petitioner had not appeared nor filed a reply to a show cause notice issued by the revenue authorities. The adjudicating officer, despite the petitioner's non-appearance, proceeded to adjudicate the show cause notice and confirmed the demand.
Held
The Court noted the submission by the learned Standing Counsel for Central GST & Central Excise that the petitioner had not appeared nor filed a reply to the show cause notice, but the adjudicating officer had proceeded to confirm the demand by an order dated July 19, 2024. The Court also took note of the submission by learned counsel for both parties that the issue involved in the writ petition had been decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Mineral Area Development Authority and another (Enforcement Order) v. Steel Authority of India and another. In light of this, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to avail the remedy available to them under the law against the order dated July 19, 2024. The writ petition was disposed of with this liberty.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to challenge the order dated July 19, 2024, passed by the adjudicating officer, given their non-appearance and failure to file a reply to the show cause notice? (Question of law) Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner, represented by Mr. Virendra Verma, sought relief from the High Court. The specific arguments made by the petitioner are not detailed in the judgment. Revenue's Contention: Mr. Maneesh Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for Central GST & Central Excise, submitted that the petitioner did not appear nor file a reply to the show cause notice, but the adjudicating officer had still passed an order confirming the demand. The revenue did not argue against the petitioner's right to approach the court, but rather stated the procedural facts.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
{W.P.(T)No.166/2021}
2025:CGHC:15236-DB
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPT No. 166 of 2021 M/s Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd., a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013, having its Registered Office at Shop No.39-42, Ground Floor, Krishna Crown Complex, Chaitanaya Nagar, Jagatpur, P.O. & P.S. Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh, in the State of Chhattisgarh – 496001, represented through its Director Shri Mukesh Bansal, son of Sri Sagarmal Bansal, Aged about 36 years, resident of at House No.1165, Ward No.4, Dhimrapur Chowk, Near Mahindra Show Room, P.O. & P.S. Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh, in the State of Chhattisgarh – 496001, who is a citizen of India.
... Petitioner versus
Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), 137, North Block, New Delhi – 110001. 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice, 4th Floor, A Wing, Rajendra Prasad Road, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001. 3. The Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (formerly Central Board of Excise and Customs), Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, North
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Chhattisgarh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.