Jahal Singh Jain Proprietor Jain ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 528 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Jahal Singh Jain Proprietor Jain ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 July, 2025

                                                           1/3




AVINASH
SHARMA                        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed by
AVINASH SHARMA
Date: 2025.07.16
16:31:59 +0530
                                                  WPT No. 99 of 2025
                                JAHAL SINGH JAIN PROPRIETOR JAIN TRADERS versus
                      STATE OF CHHATTISGARH


                                                     Order Sheet


                      16/07/2025         Shri Siddharth Dubey, counsel for the petitioner.
                                         Shri     Dilman    Rati   Minj,   Govt.   Advocate   for
                                   State/respondents.

Heard.

Issue notice to the respondents on merits as well as on I.A. No.1/2025, application for interim relief(s).

Since learned State counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondents, no formal step is required.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no proper notice has been served upon the petitioner in terms of Section 169 of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (henceforth "the Act, 2017"). He would further submit that on 06.03.2025, this Court in WPT No.42/2025, placing reliance on the judgment of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in W.P.(MD). No.26481/2024 and other connected matters (Udumalpet Sarvodaya Sangham vs. The Authority, Under Shop and Establishment Act and

Anr.) vide order dated 06.01.2025, interpreted Section 169 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by observing that Sub-Section (1) of Section 169 would mean that Clauses (a) to (c) would be alternative and if it was not practicable, then Clauses (d) to (f) would have to be followed. Learned counsel further submits that assessee got the knowledge of adjudication/assessment order dated 29.12.2023 passed under Section 73 (9) of the Act, 2017, when the same was received by assessee on 27.06.2025 via post. He also submits, on instructions, that the assessee is ready to deposit a sum equal to 10 % of the remaining amount of tax in dispute arising from the impugned order. Lastly, he submits that this petition may be disposed of reserving liberty in favour of assessee to prefer an appeal after depositing the aforesaid amount, as he came to know about the impugned order on 27.06.2025 and he was deprived of the opportunity to file an appeal in terms of Section 107 (4) wherein, limitation period of 3 months with further period of 01 month has been prescribed, however, the said period is from the date of knowledge of the order impugned.

Learned counsel for the State/respondents would submit that recently in the order dated 25.06.2025 passed by Allahabad High Court in the matter of M/s D.R. Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Gomti Nagar Lucknow Thru. Finance Director Mr. Amitabh Porwar vs. Deputy Commissioner, Sector 20 State Gst Lucknow {2025:AHC-LKO:36334-DB}, service was effected through one of the modes prescribed under Section 169 i.e. email, which was found to be sufficient. He prays for time to seek instructions and to file

reply.

2 weeks time is granted to learned counsel for State to seeks instructions and file reply.

Considering the submissions as also the facts of the case, purely as an interim measure, it is directed that effect and operation of the impugned demand orders dated 23.06.2025 and 29.12.2023 shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.

List this matter in the week commencing on 11.08.2025.

Sd/-

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

Avinash