Suresh Kumar Mulwani Proprietor Of Vijay Pharma vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court, considering the submission of the petitioner's counsel that he was willing to deposit the assessed tax liability of Rs. 3,42,883/-, found a case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution to do complete justice. The Court granted the petitioner an opportunity to prefer a statutory appeal against the order dated 22.08.2024 before the appellate authority within one month from the date of 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 depositing the tax liability. The petitioner was also granted liberty to raise all available defenses, including the ex parte nature of the order, before the appellate authority, which would then decide the same in accordance with the law. The Court explicitly stated that the deposit of the amount was a condition precedent for hearing the appeal.

Facts

The petitioner, Suresh Kumar Mulwani, proprietor of Vijay Pharma, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 22.08.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Raipur-4. This order assessed a tax liability of Rs. 15,33,777/-, including interest and penalty, for the financial year 2019-20. The petitioner also challenged the rejection of his rectification application on 20.04.2026. The petitioner contended that the ex parte assessment order was passed without granting him an opportunity of hearing. The department had issued notices for reply, but the petitioner claims he only became aware of the order on 16.02.2026 and subsequently filed a rectification application. The department argued that sufficient opportunities were provided, and the petitioner failed to respond.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex parte assessment order dated 22.08.2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, violates the principles of natural justice by failing to grant the petitioner an adequate opportunity of hearing, as contemplated under the relevant provisions of the GST Act, 2017? 2. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's rectification application dated 16.03.2026 was justified, considering the petitioner's claim of not being properly notified of the original assessment order? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned orders were passed without granting a proper opportunity of personal hearing, thus violating the principles of natural justice and fair play. He also contended that he came to know about the order late and his rectification application was wrongly dismissed. Revenue's Arguments: 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 complain of a violation of natural justice, and the order does not warrant interference.