2025 (7) TMI 836

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State / respondents. 2. By this appeal under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006, the appellant/writ petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 04.04.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(T) No. 111/2024 by which the challenge made by the appellant/writ petitioner to the order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the respondent No. 2, whereby the tax demand of Rs. 42,73,78,516/- and levying interest of Rs. 46,68,818/- and penalty of Rs. 4,27,37,852/-, has been turned down. 3. The facts, in brief, as projected by the appellant/writ petitioner are the appellant is a bulk supplier of a wide range of coal and is engaged in catering to the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n against the appellant and confirmed the demand based on both SCN-1 and SCN-2, thus violating principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. 4. Dr. Poddar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that since no opportunity of hearing was given, the matter was to be remanded back to the Assessing Authority as it came to be passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. In support of his contention, he places reliance on the decisions of various High Courts i.e. Netcore Solution Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India {2024 (5) TMI 967}, Sree Constructions v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) and Ors {2022 (4) TMI 350}, Basheer Bags v. Deputy State Tax Officer-2 {(2024) 1 TMI 110}. 5. Dr. Poddar further submits that the learned Single Jud....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the Apex Court in Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. v. State of Bihar {(2022) 16 SCC 428}. 6. Per contra, Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State would submit that as the appellant/writ petitioner had statutory efficacious alternative remedies available to him which is suppressed in paragraph 5 of the writ petition, the petition was not maintainable and therefore the same rightly deserved to be dismissed as the appellant/writ 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....