Anand Sales Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, Anand Sales Enterprises, through its proprietor Shrikant Gupta, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated January 29, 2025, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Raipur. This order, issued under Section 74(9) of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, imposed a demand of Rs. 2,48,454/-. The petitioner had previously submitted a reply to a summary of show cause notice dated August 5, 2024, and indicated a preference for a personal hearing. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed ex-parte, without affording a personal hearing and without properly considering their reply, thus violating principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the Act. The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that an alternative appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Act was available.

Held

The Court acknowledged that there is no absolute bar to entertaining a writ petition despite the availability of an alternative remedy. However, the decision to entertain such a petition rests on the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court noted that the impugned order was appealable under Section 107 of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which requires a pre-deposit of 10% of the demanded tax. The Court found that the grounds agitated by the petitioner, including the alleged violation of Section 75(4) and principles of natural justice, could be effectively raised before the Appellate Authority. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition at that stage. The petitioner was granted liberty to avail the alternative appellate remedy as per law. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the violation of principles of natural justice or Section 75(4).

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before this Court despite the availability of an alternative appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, considering the alleged violation of principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the Act? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed in violation of Section 75(4) of the Act, as they had opted for a personal hearing and their reply was not considered. They contended that this violation of statutory provisions and principles of natural justice warranted the entertainment of the writ petition, citing precedents where coordinate benches had entertained similar petitions. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Act was available before the Appellate Authority. They further submitted that the petitioner was attempting to avoid the statutory pre-deposit of 10% of the demanded tax required for filing an appeal. The respondent emphasized that the appellate remedy could be availed within the prescribed time limits, including extensions.