Bitchem Asphalt Technologies Ltd. Vs Union of Indai And 4 Ors. (Gauhati High Court)
The appellant, a company engaged in supplying road-building materials under the brand name “Bitchem” with GST registrations across multiple States, challenged a Single Judge’s judgment dated 08.06.2026 which had declined to adjudicate its writ petitions and instead relegated it to the statutory appellate remedy. The dispute arose from a consolidated Show Cause Notice dated 25.06.2025 issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act covering FY 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21. The notice, based on a purported Central Excise Revenue Audit, alleged a mismatch of approximately ₹68.59 crore between GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C and proposed GST demand of ₹12.34 crore along with interest and penalty.
The appellant contended that no notice in Form GST ASMT-10 under Section 61 was issued before initiation of proceedings under Section 74, the Central Excise Revenue Audit materials relied upon were never supplied, no personal hearing was granted despite a detailed reply, and a consolidated notice and adjudication order covering multiple financial years was impermissible. It also questioned whether the Central Excise Revenue Audit had jurisdiction to audit a private company and argued that the Single Judge failed to decide these issues despite exercising jurisdiction under Article 226.
The Single Judge had granted liberty to pursue statutory remedies, directed that appeals filed within the stipulated period be decided on merits without objection on limitation, and continued interim protection until disposal of stay applications.
The Division Bench observed that the issues raised by the appellant, including those relating to non-issuance of ASMT-10, non-supply of audit materials and other objections, could effectively be decided by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act. Since the Single Judge had already protected the appellant by permitting a delayed statutory appeal and continuing interim protection, the Court found no reason to interfere except to modify the time granted.
Accordingly, the High Court directed that if the appellant files the statutory appeal within three weeks (21 days) from the date of the judgment, the appellate authority shall entertain it without insisting on limitation. It further directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the appellant until its stay application is decided. The appeal was disposed of with this modification to the Single Judge’s judgment.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GAUHATI HIGH COURT
We have heard Mr. Dhrupad Das, assisted by Ms. Dolly Gupta, learned Advocates for the appellant; Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned senior Advocate assisted by Ms. R. Hussain, Advocate, for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5, and Ms. M. Das, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1.
The appellant, a company incorporated in the year 1996 and engaged in supplying road-building materials under the brand name “Bitchem”, having multiple GST registration across various States of the country including the State of Assam, has questioned the judgment dated 08.06.2026, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No. 2922/2025 and other connected writ petitions, relegating the appellant to the statutory appellate authority, without adjudicating the other issues raised by the appellant.
A single consolidated Show Cause notice dated 25.06.2025, under Section 74 of the CGST Act was issued to the appellant for three financial years (FY 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21). This Notice was based on a purported Central Excise Revenue Audit, which depicted a discrepancy between the taxable turnover reported in GSTR-9 and the audited figures in GSTR-9C.
Under the afore-noted Notice issued by the respondent No. 4, the appellant was required to explain the mismatch of the turnover of approx. Rs. 68.59 Crores and, in case of failure to do so, to pay GST to the tune of Rs. 12.34 Crores plus interest and penalty.
Being aggrieved, the appellant approached the appellate authority raising many issues, namely, no prior notice in GST ASMT-10 Form under Section 61 of the CGST Act, 2017 was issued to the appellant before issuance of the notice under Section 74 of the Act. Likewise, it was argued on behalf of the appellant that the Central Excise Revenue Audit materials, which were the basis for issuance of notice to the appellant, were never supplied to the appellant. Notwithstanding the fact that the appellant had submitted a detailed reply, no personal hearing was afforded to the appellant.
Based on the notice and the response of the appellant, an order was passed by the respondent No. 4 on 28.11.2025 in a consolidated manner, confirming the entire demand.
The appellant thereafter challenged both the Show Cause Notice and the order dated 28.11.2025 before the learned Single Judge.
The learned Single Judge, vide the impugned judgment, held as follows:
“74. Accordingly, all the three writ petitions stands disposed of with the following observations and directions:
i. This Court grants liberty to the Petitioners in the three writ petition to avail remedies before the appropriate forum under the Act of 2017.
ii. This Court further observes that in the circumstance, the Petitioners in WP(C) No.2922/2025 and WP(C) No.20/2026 approach the Appellate Tribunal within 30 (thirty) days from the date of the present judgment, the Appellate Tribunal shall decide the respective appeals so filed by the writ petitioners in WP(C) No.2922/2025 and WP(C) No.20/2026 on merits without insisting on the question of limitation in filing the appeals.
iii. This Court further grants liberty to the Petitioner in WP(C) No.1113/2026 to approach the Appellate Authority in terms with Section 107 of the Act of 2017 and it is observed that if the Petitioner in WP(C) No.1113/2026 approaches within a period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of the present judgment, the Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal on merits, without insisting on the question of limitation.
iv. This Court further observes that the interim orders passed in the three writ petitions shall continue till the consideration of the stay application by the Appellate Tribunal/Appellate Authority as the case may be subject to the Appeals being filed by the Petitioners herein as per the liberty granted herein above within the period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of the present judgment.
v. There shall be no orders as to cost.”
In this appeal, Mr. Das, learned Advocate for the appellant has raised various issues, namely, whether a Proper Officer under Sections 73/74 of the CGST Act could issue consolidated Notice and pass consolidated adjudication order covering multiple financial years; whether the learned Single Judge was justified in relegating the appellant to the statutory appellate authority when many issues, including the issue with regard to jurisdictional authority, going to the root of the proceedings, had been raised; whether the proceedings against the appellant could have been founded on the Central Excise Revenue Audit, which body does not have the jurisdiction to audit any private/non-government company; and whether Show Cause Notice could have been issued to the appellant without first issuing the mandatory notice in GST ASMT-10 Form.
The case put up by the appellant before this Court is that the Proper Officer did not apply his mind and that the learned Single Judge did not deal with any such issues/materials except the jurisdictional authority of the officer in issuing the consolidated notice for multiple financial years.
Mr. Das therefore laments that the learned Single Judge stopped at the threshold issue when the other issues were equally important and could have been adjudicated under Article 226 jurisdiction.
After having heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Keyal, learned senior Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 5, we are of the view that the issues raised by the appellant can very effectively be decided by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
We have noticed that liberty was granted to the appellant to prefer an appeal within 30 (thirty) days, which was directed to be heard on merits without insisting on limitation. It was also clarified by the learned Single Judge that the interim protection would continue till the stay application filed on behalf of the appellant was considered and an order was passed by the appellate authority.
Since the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge has been questioned before this Court, we only deem it appropriate to further extend the period granted to the appellant, by directing that in case the appellant prefers a statutory appeal within three weeks (21 days), to be counted from today, it shall be taken up by the appellate authority without insisting on limitation, and no coercive steps shall be taken against the appellant till the time the stay application preferred by the appellant is decided.
This appeal stands disposed off with the afore-noted modification of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.
