SHREE HANUMANT STEEL TRADERS vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

1

CGHC010043272026 2026:CGHC:39456
NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPT No. 11 of 2026
1 - Shree Hanumant Steel Traders Kanhaiya Lal Bazar Ward, Ward No.
08, Naya Talab, Gudhiyari, Raipur, C.G., 492001, Represented Through
Proprietor Shri Kamal Kishor Agrawal, Aged About 40 Years S/o Shri
Mahavir Prasar Agrawal, R/o Near Patahak Kirana Store, Naya Talab,
Gudhiyari Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001
2 - Shri Kamal Kishor Agrawal S/o Shri Mahavir Prasar Agrawal Aged
About 40 Years R/o Near Patahak Kirana Store, Naya Talab, Gudhiyari
Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Assistant Commissioner Circle-5, Division - 1, State Goods And
Services Tax, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
WITH
WPT No. 15 of 2026
1 - Shree Hanumant Steel Traders Kanhaiya Lal Bazar Ward, Ward No.
08, Naya Talab, Gudhiyari, Raipur C.G. 492001, Represented Through
Proprietor Shri Kamal Kishor Agrawal, Aged About 40 Years, S/o. Shri
Mahavir Prasar Agrawal, R/o. Near Patahak Kirana Store, Naya Talab,
Gudhiyari, Raipur C.G. 492001.
2 - Shri Kamal Kishor Agrawal, S/o. Shri Mahavir Prasar Agrawal, Aged
About 40 Years R/o. Near Patahak Kirana Store, Naya Talab, Gudhiyari
Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001
--- Petitioner(s)
Versus

2
1 - Assistant Commissioner Circle-5, Division-1, State Goods And
Services Tax, Civil Lines, Raipur C.G.
--- Respondent(s)
WITH
WPT No. 12 of 2026
1 - Shree Hanumant Steel Traders Kanhaiya Lal Bazar, Ward No. 08,
Naya Talab, Gudhiyari, Raipur C.G. 492001, Represented Through
Proprietor Shri Kamal Kishor Agrawal, Aged About 40 Years, S/o Shri
Mahavir Prasar Agrawal, R/o Near Patahak Kirana Store, Naya Talab,
Gudhiyari Raipur, C.G. 492001.
2 - Shri Kamal Kishor Agrawal S/o Shri Mahavir Prasar Agrawal Aged
About 40 Years R/o Near Patahak Kirana Store, Naya Talab, Gudhiyari
Raipur, C.G. 492001.
--- Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - Assistant Commissioner Circle-5, Division-1, State Goods And
Services Tax, Civil Lines, Raipur C.G.
--- Respondent(s)
For Petitioners : Mr. Palash Soni, Advocate along with
Mr. Shiv Kumar Soni, Advocate and
Mr. Prashant Dansena, Advocate
For Respondent : Ms. Anuradha Jain, Dy. G.A.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order On Board
09.09.2026
1) In this batch of writ petitions, petitioners have challenged the
respective notices issued by the respondent under Section 74(9)
of GST Act, 2017 dated 16.10.2025.
2) Mr. Palash Soni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that the issue involved in the present cases is no more
res integra and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Tata

3
1
Steels Ltd. Versus Union of India held that the foundational
facts which led to the inference arrived at of fraud/ wilful
misrepresentation/ suppression should be evident from the notice
itself. He further submits that the impugned notices lack such
foundational facts therefore the same deserve to be quashed. He
prays to allow these writ petitions.
3) On the other hand, Ms. Anuradha Jain, learned State counsel
submits that the respondent authority has issued the respective
notices describing the amounts as the petitioner availed input tax
credit by issuing fake invoices without actual supply of goods.
She further submits that the authority concerned has
appropriately depicted the foundational facts and petitioners have
efficacious alternative remedy available in their favor to prefer
respective appeals u/s 107 of GST Act.
4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
5) A careful perusal of the impugned notices would reveal that the
authority concerned failed to assign sufficient reasons while
issuing the respective notices under Section 74(9) of GST Act,
2017. Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the similar issue
in Tata Steels Ltd. (supra) held as under :-
14. It is not mere lip service to the
provisions that is intended when an
extended limitation period is provided for
1 . [2026] 189 taxmann.com 520 (SC)

4
recovering an excess benefit availed, short
payment or excess refund, from the
assessee, especially when the allegation is
of fraud/ wilful misrepresentation/
suppression. The foundational facts which
led to the inference arrived at of fraud/ wilful
misrepresentation/ suppression should be
evident from the notice itself. The mere
employment of such words will not indicate
an application of mind, upon which alone
the satisfaction can be arrived at. The
words are not to be mechanically recited in
the notice to enable recovery outside the
normal limitation provided under the statute.
6) In view of the aforesaid discussion and the established legal
position, respective notices issued by the respondent under
Section 74(9) of GST Act, 2017 dated 16.10.2025 are hereby
quashed.
7) Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed . However,
respondent authority would be at liberty to issue fresh notices
strictly in accordance with law, if so advised.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
A j i n k y A
Digitally signed
by AJINKYA
PANSARE
Date: 2026.09.09
16:57:14 +0530