M/s Derolion Solvent Product Ltd. vs The Commissioner Of Commercial Tax & Ors.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

Since common question of law and facts are involved in bunch of these writ petitions, they heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.

This bunch of petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner assailing the order dated 30/07/2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Bilaspur, Division No.1 in Case No. BIL/II/2354 whereby the learned Assistant Commissioner has reassessed the tax liability of the petitioner for the assessment year 1995–96 to the tune of Rs. 7,47,594/-, for assessment year 1995-96 i.e., 1/04/1995 to 31/03/1996, Rs.10,36,753/- for the assessment year 1992-93 i.e., 01/04/1992 to 31/03/1993, Rs.11,28,880/- for the assessment year 1994-95 i.e., 01/04/1994 to 31/03/1995 and Rs.11,25,125/- for the assessment year 1996-97 i.e., 01/04/1996 to 31/03/1997, which is assailed by the petitioner herein. The petitioner has also challenged the subsequent Form ‘U’ Sale Proclamation dated 30/09/2025 proposing auction of petitioner’s industrial land situated at Village-Pendari, Tahsil-Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur.

The facts of the case are that the Petitioner Company, M/s Derolion Solvent Products Ltd., was engaged in the manufacture of oil/solvent from soyabean and was granted an eligibility certificate exempting it from payment of sales tax for the period from 14.02.1992 to 13.02.1997. Although the Petitioner’s returns for the assessment year 1995-96 were duly accepted, purchase tax was subsequently imposed vide order dated 24.09.2001 without any prior assessment, notice, inquiry or supply of relevant material. The said order, along with the subsequent appellate orders, was challenged before this Court in WPT No.1681 of 2009, wherein this Court vide judgment dated 21.11.2023, has set aside the orders and remitted the matter for fresh consideration strictly in accordance with Section 28 of the Chhattisgarh Commercial Tax Act, 1994, after affording due opportunity of hearing. The Court has also noted that no assessment had been made, no notice had been issued and no opportunity of hearing had been afforded to the Petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner appeared and sought the relevant documents and material forming the basis of reassessment; however, the same were not supplied, and Respondent No.3, vide impugned order dated 30.07.2024, again imposed purchase tax without conducting the requisite inquiry and by relying upon the earlier orders which had already been set aside by this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order has been passed in clear violation of the directions issued by this Court in WPT No. 1681 of 2009 decided on 21.11.2023, without strictly complying Section 28 of the Chhattisgarh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 and without affording an effective opportunity of hearing. He would further submit that the Assistant Commissioner has wrongly shifted the burden upon the petitioner, whereas the initial burden to establish the circumstances warranting reassessment lies upon the Revenue. The relevant materials, including Form A-20 and other documents relied upon for alleging escapement of purchase tax, were never supplied to the petitioner, thereby depriving it of a reasonable opportunity to controvert the alleged tax liability. He would further submit that the impugned order is also based upon orders which had already been set aside by this Court which is unsupported by any independent material. He would further submit that the impugned order is contrary to Section 28 of the Act, the principles of natural justice, and the specific directions issued by this Court. Hence, the impugned order and consequential recovery proceedings are liable to be quashed and would pray for allowing the petition.

On the other hand, learned State Counsel, opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the contentions raised by the petitioner are misconceived and contrary to the record as this Hon’ble Court, while deciding WPT No. 1681 of 2009 on 21.11.2023, did not render any finding or issue any direction as alleged by the petitioner, therefore, there is no violation of the said order. She would further submit that the petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy of preferring appeal under Section 61 of the Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994, and, in view of the availability of such alternative remedy, the present writ petition is not maintainable at this stage. She would further submit that the impugned order was passed on 30.07.2024, whereas the present writ petition was instituted only on 31.10.2025, after an unexplained delay of more than one year and three months, therefore, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and would pray for dismissal of the petitions.

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 61 of the Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal against the order dated 30.07.2024 within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The delay in filing the appeal from the date of the impugned order till the date of receipt of a copy of this order is hereby condoned by this Court. The appellate authority is directed to entertain and decide the appeal on its own merits, in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observation made by his Court in this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the submissions raised by either party.

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petitions are disposed of.