Chattisgarh High Court
Harak Kumar Sinha vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 3 September, 2025
1/3
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPT No. 125 of 2025
PRIYANKA
VERMA HARAK KUMAR SINHA versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH &
Digitally signed by
PRIYANKA VERMA
OTHERS
Date: 2025.09.04
10:47:52 +0530
Order Sheet
03/09/2025 Mr. Siddharth Dubey, Advocate along with Mr. Anmol
Verma, counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Anuradha Jain, PL for the State.
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 rendered in the matter 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.) (order dated 06.01.2025)
interpreted Section 169 of the 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 obtained knowledge of
adjudication/assessment order dated 24.04.2024 passed under
Section 73 (9) of the Act, 2017, when a recovery notice dated
08.07.2025 under Section 79 of the Act, 2017 was received
by him through Whatsapp on 14.07.2025 (Annexure P/2).
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 14.07.2025 and he was deprived of
the opportunity to file an appeal in terms of Section 107 (4)
the Act, 2017 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}, if the
service was effected through one of the modes prescribed
under Section 169 i.e. email, the same was found to be
sufficient. She also places reliance in the judgment rendered
in the matter of M/s Carry Co, Prop: Mr. Kajal Kumar
Garai vs. Union of India & Others (WPA No.2774 of
2025) by the Calcutta High Court. She prays for time to seek
instructions and also to file reply.
Learned counsel for State has granted 2 weeks' time to
seeks instructions as also to 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
08.07.2025 and 24.04.2024 shall remain stayed till the next
date of hearing.
List this matter after 6 weeks.
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
Judge
Priyanka
