Disposed¶29

M/S Piramal Petrolium Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax

Chhattisgarh HC7 Apr 2025TAXC/145/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CG Value Added Tax Act 2005; Section 55(2) reference application; Section 55(1) reference refused by Tribunal; Section 54 penalty and interest; reassessment under Section 22(1) quashed; want of assessment order under Section 21(1); WPT No.228/2022 order dated 23.3.2023 attaining finality; Tribunal directed to refer question of law; M/s Piramal Petrolium Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax; Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur; tax reference; disposal of Reference Application.

What did the court decide?

The Reference Application was disposed of with the direction that the concerned Tribunal shall make a reference to this Court on the formulated question of law. ¶29

M/S Piramal Petrolium Private Ltd. Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The Reference Application was disposed of with the direction that the concerned Tribunal shall make a reference to this Court on the formulated question of law.

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the authorities were justified in imposing penalty and interest under Section 54 of the Act, 2005 on the basis of the reassessment order dated 26.3.2016, ignoring that the reassessment order passed under Section 22(1) of the Act, 2005 had already been quashed by this Court vide order dated 23.3.2023 in WPT No.228/2022 and had attained finality (question of law formulated by this Court for consideration on reference). +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

The concerned Tribunal is directed to make a reference to this Court on the formulated question of law concerning imposition of penalty and interest under Section 54 of the Act, 2005 on the basis of the quashed reassessment order dated 26.3.2016.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the documents, the Court is satisfied that the Tribunal is not justified in not referring the question of law to this Court.

¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

TAXC No. 145 of 2024, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Sanjay K. Agrawal & Deepak Kumar Tiwari, JJ.; order dated 08.04.2025): Reference Application by M/s Piramal Petrolium Private Ltd. under Section 55(2) of the CG Value Added Tax Act, 2005 seeking a reference of a question of law. Background: reassessment under Section 22(1) culminating in an order dated 26.3.2016 had been quashed by this Court on 23.3.2023 in WPT No.228/2022 on the ground that no assessment order required under Section 21(1) had been passed; nevertheless, the Assistant Commissioner imposed penalty and interest under Section 54 of the Act, 2005, first and second appeals before the Tribunal were rejected, and a reference application under Section 55(1) before the CG Commercial Tax Tribunal, Raipur was dismissed. Holding the Tribunal not justified in refusing the reference, the Court formulated the question whether the authorities were justified in imposing penalty and interest under Section 54 on the basis of the quashed reassessment order dated 26.3.2016, and directed the Tribunal to make the reference; the Reference Application was disposed of accordingly.

2025:CGHC:16353-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

TAXC No. 145 of 2024

¶6

1 - M/s Piramal Petrolium Private Ltd. Sf-8, Shyam Plaza, Pandri, Raipur (Old Address Ramsagar Para, Raipur), Through Its Director Vaibhav Agrawal, S/o Shri Nand Kishore Agrawal, Aged About 38 Years, Resident H.No. 7,sector -1 Geetanjali Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Commissioner Of Commercial Tax G.S.T. Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Sector -19, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Respondent(s)

¶11

For Petitioner : Shri Mool Chand Jain, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, JJ

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

(08/04/2025)

¶15

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

¶16

This is a Reference Application preferred by the petitioner under

¶17

Section 55 (2) of the CG Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short ‘the

¶18

Digitally signed by KRISHNA KRISHNA KUMAR KUMAR BARVE BARVE Date: 2025.04.09 16:36:35 +0530

¶19

Act, 2005’) requiring the Tribunal to refer the question of law.

¶20

¶21

The petitioner was subjected to reassessment under Section 22 (1) of the Act, 2005, which was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by way of filing WPT No.228/2022 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court by an order dated 23.3.2023 allowed the writ petition on the legal ground that no assessment order was passed by the respondent which was otherwise required under Section 21 (1) of the Act, 2005, in the absence of which no re-assessment proceedings could have been drawn under Section 22 (1) of the Act, 2005. Accordingly, the order of reassessment dated 26.3.2016 was set aside/quashed. Meanwhile, the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax initiated proceeding under Section 54 of the Act, 2005 and imposed penalty and interest on the petitioner. Against which a first appeal was preferred before the Tribunal which was rejected. Thereafter second appeal was also preferred before the Tribunal, which also met the same fate. The petitioner thereafter moved a reference application under Section 55 (1) of the Act, 2005 before the CG Commercial Tax Tribunal, Raipur, which was dismissed holding that no case is made out for referring the questions of law, which led to filing of the present petition.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the reassessment order dated 26.3.2016 has already been set aside by this Court, which has become final, the order passed by the

¶23

¶24

Assistant Commissioner imposing penalty and interest under Section 54 of the Act, 2005 deserves to be set aside and the concerned Tribunal may be directed to refer the question of law to this Court.

¶25

Per contra, learned State Counsel would submit that no case for making reference is made out.

¶26

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the documents, we are satisfied that the Tribunal is not justified in not referring the question of law to this Court, and the following question of law is formulated for consideration:-

¶27

“Whether the authorities were justified in imposing penalty and interest under Section 54 of the Act, 2005 on the basis of order of reassessment dated 26.3.2016 ignoring the fact that the reassessment order passed under Section 22 (1) of the Act, 2005 has already been quashed by this Court vide order dated 23.3.2023 passed in WPT No.228/2022 (M/s Piramal Petrolium Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of CG & Others), and which has attained finality?

¶28

For the foregoing, it is directed that the concerned Tribunal shall make a reference to this Court on the abovestated question of law.

¶29

With the aforesaid direction, the Reference Application is disposed of.

¶30

Sd/Sd/( Sanjay K. Agrawal ) ( Deepak Kumar Tiwari ) Judge Judge

¶31

Barve

M/S Piramal Petrolium Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Piramal Petrolium Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Kumar Jain Vs Income Tax Officer - 2(2)

Madhu Paikara Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Kunj Bihari Agrawal Vs Income Tax Officer

Harish Kumar Chhabada Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax

Income Tax OFFICER-3(1) Raipur, Vs Shilphy Steels Private Limited

M/S Bharat Rail Automations Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Commercial Tax