Case Details
-
Case Title: M/s Indermani Minerals India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
-
Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur
-
Case No.: WA No. 434 of 2025
-
Date of Judgment: 09.07.2025
-
Relevant Sections:
-
Section 73, 75(4), 107, 109 & 168A of the CGST Act, 2017
-
Rule 108 & 109 of the CGST Rules, 2017
-
-
Category of Dispute: GST demand – Alleged violation of natural justice / Availability of alternative remedy
Facts (Paras 2–4)
The appellant, a bulk coal supplier, was issued ASMT-10 notice in November 2023 for discrepancies in GST returns of FY 2018–19. A first show cause notice (SCN-1) was issued in December 2023, to which a detailed reply was filed in February 2024. Subsequently, a second show cause notice (SCN-2) was issued in March 2024 introducing new allegations. Despite seeking short adjournment, the appellant’s reply of April 8, 2024, was followed the same day by a demand order confirming tax of ₹42.73 crore, interest of ₹46.68 lakh, and penalty of ₹4.27 crore. The appellant alleged breach of natural justice and challenged the order before the Single Judge, which was dismissed.
Questions before the Court (Paras 2, 5–6)
-
Whether the assessment order dated 08.04.2024 was passed in violation of principles of natural justice as no proper hearing was granted?
-
Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite availability of statutory appellate remedies under Sections 107 & 109 of the CGST Act?
Observations (Paras 7–8)
The Division Bench noted that the appellant’s reply dated 08.04.2024 was indeed considered by the assessing authority, and an opportunity of hearing was provided. Thus, the plea of violation of Section 75(4) of CGST Act was factually incorrect. The Court emphasized that efficacious statutory remedies existed under Sections 107 & 109 before the appellate authority and tribunal, which the appellant bypassed by directly filing the writ petition. Reliance on precedents regarding violation of natural justice was held misplaced as the facts showed otherwise.
Judgment (Paras 8–9)
The Court upheld the Single Judge’s dismissal, concurring that the writ petition was not maintainable in view of the alternative statutory remedy. Liberty was granted to the appellant to pursue appeal before the competent authority, with assurance that delay would not be a ground for rejection. Consequently, the writ appeal was dismissed.
Case Law Referred – Tabular Summary
| Case | Court | Citation | Ratio / Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| Netcore Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI | Bombay HC | 2024 (5) TMI 967 | Orders passed without hearing are invalid – upheld natural justice. |
| Sree Constructions v. Asst. Commissioner (ST) | Telangana HC | 2022 (4) TMI 350 | Assessment without hearing violates Section 75(4). |
| Basheer Bags v. Dy. State Tax Officer-2 | Madras HC | (2024) 1 TMI 110 | Opportunity of hearing mandatory before adverse order. |
| Mahindra & Mahindra v. UOI | Chhattisgarh HC | WA No. 172/2024 (10.04.2024) | Second SCN introducing new allegations after limitation impermissible. |
| Bharat Mint & Allied Chemicals v. CCT | Allahabad HC | Writ Tax 1029/2021 (04.03.2022) | Violation of natural justice vitiates proceedings. |
| Lari Almira House v. State of U.P. | Allahabad HC | 2023 SCC OnLine All 1880 | Show cause must disclose all allegations; else order invalid. |
| Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. v. State of Bihar | Supreme Court | (2022) 16 SCC 428 | Writ jurisdiction can be invoked when order is ex facie without jurisdiction or violates natural justice. |
Between Fine Lines (Trade Takeaway)
This ruling reinforces that taxpayers cannot bypass the statutory appellate process merely by alleging violation of natural justice when the record shows hearing was granted. The High Court underlined that writ petitions will be dismissed if efficacious remedies under GST law are available, unless a glaring illegality is established. Businesses should, therefore, carefully exhaust appellate remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”