9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 500X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty of INR 4,27,37,852/-. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the Petitioner is a bulk supplier of a wide range of coal and is engaged in catering to the diversified needs of various industrial sectors throughout the southern and central part of India covering Cement Plants, Power Generation Plants, Steel Mills, etc. via their industrial products dealing and also provides Goods Transport Agency Services. On 21.11.2023, Respondent No. 2 issued FORM ASMT-10 Notice to the Petitioner, pointing out discrepancies in the GST return following scrutiny of the GST Monthly & Annual Returns for the Financial Year 2018-19. Subsequently, on 26.12.2023, Respondent No. 2 served Show Cause Notice-1 (SCN-1) through FORM GST DRC-01 for FY 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty State Tax Officer-2 (2024) 1 TMI 110. 3. Per contra learned Counsel for the State would submit that that the petitioner had statutory efficacious alternative remedies available to him which is suppressed by the petitioner in his petition at para 5 of the petition. It is respectfully submitted that the present petition as framed and filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and therefore the same deserves to be dismissed as the petitioner has directly rushed to this Hon'ble Court without exhausting the statutory efficacious alternative remedy of approaching the competent authority against the order impugned i.e. before the Additional Commissioner, State Tax, Chhattisgarh and thereafter before the Appellate Tribunal as per the prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. Versus M/s Commercial Steel Limited reported in 2021 (7) SCR 660 the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that respondents therein had a statutory remedy under Section 107 of CGST Act. Relevant paras are reproduced herein below:- 12. In the present case, none of the above exceptions was established. There was, in fact, no violation of the principles of natural justice since a notice was served on the person in charge of the conveyance. In this backdrop, it was not appropriate for the High Court to entertain a writ petition. The assessment of facts would have to be carried out by the appellate authority. As a matter of fact, the High Court has while doing this exercise proceeded on the basis of surmises. Howev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
