Single Judge Cannot Dismiss CST & VAT Writs for Alternative Remedy Once Division Bench Remits Decision on Merits: Chhattisgarh HC [Read Order]
The Division Bench held that once the earlier Bench had remitted the matter for merits without entertaining the plea of alternative remedy
Single Judge
Single Judge
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that a Single Judge Bench of the High Court cannot dismiss writ petitions under the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy, once the Division Bench has already directed adjudication of the matter on merits in appeal.
The decision was rendered by the Chhattisgarh High Court while adjudicating a batch of writ appeals led by a case filed by M/s Sunil Kumar Agrawal. The facts of the present case follows the assessing authority’s deletion of the words “High Speed Diesel for Mining Machinery” from the appellant’s registration certificate. The Assessing Authority then issued a notice under Section 49(1) of the CGVAT Act read with Section 9(2) of the CST Act and passed an order on 14 October 2020 deleting the insertion from the appellant’s registration certificate.
The writ petitions challenging these orders were initially allowed by a Single Judge on 18 October 2022, who set aside the deletion of the words and rejected the argument of alternative remedy.
Understanding Common Mode of Tax Evasion with Practical Scenarios, Click Here
However, the State preferred appeals before the Division Bench who allowed the State’s appeals and remitted the matters to the Single Judge for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, without sustaining the plea of alternative remedy.
On remand, the Single Judge dismissed the petitions on 3 April 2025 holding that the assessees had an efficacious statutory alternative remedy, again leading to the present batch of appeals before the Division Bench.
The appellants, represented by Ramit Mehta and Anumeh Shrivastava, argued that the Division Bench, in its earlier order had conclusively dealt with the issue of alternative remedy and remitted the case only for adjudication on merits. It was further submitted that the Single Judge erred in reintroducing the question of maintainability, which had already attained finality.
Counsel for the appellants relied on numerous Supreme Court precedents to validate their stance, including Radha Raman Samanta v. Bank of India and Others (2004), Godrej Sara LeeLtd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-assessing authority and Others (2023TAXSCAN (SC) 122) and Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Others (2022), to emphasise that issues decided by a superior Bench could not be reopened.
The State, represented by Rahul Tamaskar defended the order of the Single Judge, contending that dismissal was justified given the existence of a statutory appellate mechanism.
Understanding Common Mode of Tax Evasion with Practical Scenarios, Click Here
After hearing the parties, the Division Bench of Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Radhakishan Agrawal held that once the earlier Bench had remitted the matter for merits without entertaining the plea of alternative remedy, it was not open to the Single Judge to dismiss the writ petitions again on the very same ground.
Accordingly, the Chhattisgarh High Court set aside the common order dated 3 April 2025 and remitted the matters back to the Single Judge for adjudication on merits and determination on the basis of the questions of law raised only.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
