The Chhattisgarh High Court addressed two critical matters involving the State's responsibilities: lifting paddy stocks from procurement centers and following due legal procedures under the GST Act. The Court’s observations emphasize that government inaction can result in financial losses and procedural lapses can violate citizens' rights.
Court Directs State to Prevent Paddy Stock Loss
The Court, in the case concerning Adim Jaati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Marayadit Kulhariya, highlighted the State’s obligation to lift paddy from procurement centers in time. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad noted:
Read Also:- Chhattisgarh High Court Confirms Penalty for SBI Employee in Sexual Harassment Case
“It is the duty of the State to collect the said paddy... to prevent damage due to the efflux of time, climatic conditions, natural hazards such as mice and insects, and the approaching rainy season.”
The petitioner, a cooperative society, argued that the prolonged storage without lifting led to financial strain and deterioration of the stock. The society also claimed non-payment of commissions by the State. The High Court, recognizing these concerns, ordered the State to verify the quality and weight of the paddy, lift the remaining stock, and issue appropriate receipts.
Highlighting Violation of Natural Justice in GST Case
In another case involving Mayasheel Retail India Ltd, the High Court dealt with a tax recovery order passed without a proper show cause notice or personal hearing under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017.
The petitioner learned about the order only after receiving a recovery notice in February 2024, even though the demand was dated January 2021. The petitioner also showed that they had later responded to scrutiny notices, which resulted in the tax demand being dropped. However, the original recovery order remained in effect.
The Court observed that:
“No personal hearing was granted... reasonable opportunity of hearing means a personal hearing, which is absent in this case.”
The State argued that the petitioner skipped the statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act and directly approached the Court. The High Court clarified the principle that while writ petitions can be entertained even if alternative remedies exist, such interference is reserved for exceptional cases involving clear violations of justice.
Court Cites Key Supreme Court Precedents
Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal referred to several Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that while High Courts have broad powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, they must exercise this power cautiously. In this case, the Court concluded:
“The petitioner has not been able to make out any exceptional case to interfere... This Court has found that the instant writ petition is not to be entertained.”
However, the Court left open the possibility for the petitioner to appeal through proper channels and noted that the appellate authority must consider the time spent during the writ process.
Case Title: Adim Jaati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Marayadit Kulhariya v. State Of Chhattisgarh and others
