prpri HC grants Interim Relief to Contractor from Tax Demand Recovery HC Grants Interim Relief to Class A Contractor from Being exposed to Recovery of Tax Demand

Case Law Details

Case Name : Sunil Kumar Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (Chhattisgarh High Court)
Appeal Number : WPT No. 99 of 2020
Date of Judgement/Order : 02/11/2020
Related Assessment Year :

Sunil Kumar Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (Chhattisgarh High Court)

In the instant case, the Contractor has been disallowed to interstate procure High Speed Diesel against C form at concessional Tax rate even though the High Speed Diesel procured interstate is used in the Mining activity of Coal i.e. extraction and removal of overburden for excavation of Coal by the miner. The petitioner has filed petition against this order for tax demand.

Chhattisgarh High Court Grants Interim Relief To Class A Contractor From Being Exposed To Recovery of Tax Demand under the VAT Act and Central Sales Tax Act .


Shri Ramit Mehta and Shri Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocates for the petitioner.

Shri Sidharth Dubey, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State.

The petition is admitted for hearing.

Issue notice to the respondents as per rules.

Also heard on IA No.1, which is an application for grant of interim relief.

Issue notice on IA No.1 as well.

The challenge in the present writ petition is to Annexure P/15 dated 14.10.2020 passed by the respondent No.2.

The contention of the petitioner at the outset is that the impugned order has been passed in contravention to the requirement of law as  envisaged under Section 49(3) of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 inasmuch as no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner. Likewise, it was also the contention of the petitioner that the provisions of Section 49(3) also mandates for conducting an enquiry which again has not been conducted by the respondents before passing of the impugned order.

The counsel for the petitioner also highlighted the aspect that the authorities concerned have given a wrong interpretation of term “in mining” and “for mining” for the purpose of issuance of the impugned order Annexure P/15.

Be that as it may, undisputedly the petitioner had a registration certificate issued in his favour on 05.02.2020 adding Hi Speed Diesel also in the registration certificate for the purpose of issuance of C-Form. It is this order which now stands amended vide impugned order dated 4.10.2020 whereby Hi Speed Diesel has been removed from the registration certificate for the purpose of issuance of C-Form certificate.

Admittedly the petitioner has availed the benefits that has accrued on the registration certificate that was issued on 05.02.2020.

Learned counsel appearing for the State opposing the petition submits that from the bare perusal of the impugned order it clearly reflects that a notice under Section 49(1) was issued to the petitioner which is sufficient to draw an inference that opportunity of hearing was infact given to the petitioner before the impugned order was passed. Moreover, the petitioner would not be put to loss as the benefit was available to the selling dealer and not to the petitioner who is a purchasing dealer and therefore the petitioner would not be at this juncture entitled for any interim protection and prays for a short adjournment to file detailed affidavit/reply to the writ petition as also to the interim application.

As prayed for by the State counsel, list this case on 27.11.2020 for further hearing.

Meanwhile, purely as an interim measure it is ordered that the respondents shall not initiate any recovery proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order dated 14.10.2020.

As regards other reliefs that the petitioner is claiming, that would be subject to the outcome of the present writ petition.

(P. Sam Koshy)

Download Judgment/Order

More Under Goods and Services Tax

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

July 2021