Gauhati High Court
Bitchem Asphalt Technologies Ltd vs Union Of Indai And 4 Ors on 20 July, 2026
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010130862026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/230/2026
BITCHEM ASPHALT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING
ITS REGD. OFFICE AT ANIL PLAZA, 3RD FLOOR, NEAR IDBI BANK, G.S.
ROAD, GUWAHATI-781005 AND IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS REP. BY
MR. RASHMI RANJAN ROUT, HEAD FINANCE AND IT, THE AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY
VERSUS
UNION OF INDAI AND 4 ORS.
REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, ROOM NO. 76, NEW DELHI-110001
2:CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
DIRECTORATE OF LEGAL AFFAIRS
4TH FLOOR
RAJENDRA BHAWAN
210 DEEN DAYAL UPADHAYAY MARG
NEW DELHI-110002
3:PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER
GST CENTRAL EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE
GUWAHATI
GST BHAVAN
KEDAR ROAD
MACHKHOWA
GUWAHATI-781001
4:JOINT COMMISSIONER
GST CENTRAL EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE
Page No.# 2/6
GUWAHATI
GST BHAVAN
KEDAR ROAD
MACHKHOWA
GUWAHATI-781001
5:OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT
CGST RANGE-IC
GUWAHATI
GST BHAVAN
KEDAR ROAD
MACHKHOWA
GUWAHATI-781001
For the appellant/petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhrupad Das, Advocate
Ms. Dolly Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S.C. Keyal, Sr. Advocate
Ms. R. Hussain, Advocate
Ms. M. Das, Advocate
-B E F O R E –
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
20.07.2026
(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)
We have heard Mr. Dhrupad Das, assisted by Ms. Dolly Gupta,
learned Advocates for the appellant; Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned senior
Advocate assisted by Ms. R. Hussain, Advocate, for the respondent Nos. 2
to 5, and Ms. M. Das, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1.
The appellant, a company incorporated in the year 1996 and
engaged in supplying road-building materials under the brand name
“Bitchem”, having multiple GST registration across various States of the
country including the State of Assam, has questioned the judgment
dated 08.06.2026, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in
Page No.# 3/6
WP(C) No. 2922/2025 and other connected writ petitions, relegating the
appellant to the statutory appellate authority, without adjudicating the
other issues raised by the appellant.
A single consolidated Show Cause notice dated 25.06.2025, under
Section 74 of the CGST Act was issued to the appellant for three financial
years (FY 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21). This Notice was based on a
purported Central Excise Revenue Audit, which depicted a discrepancy
between the taxable turnover reported in GSTR-9 and the audited figures
in GSTR-9C.
Under the afore-noted Notice issued by the respondent No. 4, the
appellant was required to explain the mismatch of the turnover of
approx. Rs. 68.59 Crores and, in case of failure to do so, to pay GST to the
tune of Rs. 12.34 Crores plus interest and penalty.
Being aggrieved, the appellant approached the appellate authority
raising many issues, namely, no prior notice in GST ASMT-10 Form under
Section 61 of the CGST Act, 2017 was issued to the appellant before
issuance of the notice under Section 74 of the Act. Likewise, it was
argued on behalf of the appellant that the Central Excise Revenue Audit
materials, which were the basis for issuance of notice to the appellant,
were never supplied to the appellant. Notwithstanding the fact that the
appellant had submitted a detailed reply, no personal hearing was
afforded to the appellant.
Based on the notice and the response of the appellant, an order
was passed by the respondent No. 4 on 28.11.2025 in a consolidated
manner, confirming the entire demand.
The appellant thereafter challenged both the Show Cause Notice
Page No.# 4/6
and the order dated 28.11.2025 before the learned Single Judge.
The learned Single Judge, vide the impugned judgment, held as
follows:
“74. Accordingly, all the three writ petitions stands disposed of with the
following observations and directions:
(i) This Court grants liberty to the Petitioners in the three writ petition
to avail remedies before the appropriate forum under the Act of 2017.
(ii) This Court further observes that in the circumstance, the Petitioners
in WP(C) No.2922/2025 and WP(C) No.20/2026 approach the Appellate
Tribunal within 30 (thirty) days from the date of the present judgment, the
Appellate Tribunal shall decide the respective appeals so filed by the writ
petitioners in WP(C) No.2922/2025 and WP(C) No.20/2026 on merits
without insisting on the question of limitation in filing the appeals.
(iii) This Court further grants liberty to the Petitioner in WP(C)
No.1113/2026 to approach the Appellate Authority in terms with Section
107 of the Act of 2017 and it is observed that if the Petitioner in WP(C)
No.1113/2026 approaches within a period of 30 (thirty) days from the
date of the present judgment, the Appellate Authority shall decide the
appeal on merits, without insisting on the question of limitation.
(iv) This Court further observes that the interim orders passed in the
three writ petitions shall continue till the consideration of the stay
application by the Appellate Tribunal/Appellate Authority as the case
may be subject to the Appeals being filed by the Petitioners herein as per
the liberty granted herein above within the period of 30 (thirty) days from
the date of the present judgment.
(v) There shall be no orders as to cost.”
In this appeal, Mr. Das, learned Advocate for the appellant has
raised various issues, namely, whether a Proper Officer under Sections
73/74 of the CGST Act could issue consolidated Notice and pass
consolidated adjudication order covering multiple financial years;
whether the learned Single Judge was justified in relegating the
appellant to the statutory appellate authority when many issues,
including the issue with regard to jurisdictional authority, going to the root
Page No.# 5/6
of the proceedings, had been raised; whether the proceedings against
the appellant could have been founded on the Central Excise Revenue
Audit, which body does not have the jurisdiction to audit any
private/non-government company; and whether Show Cause Notice
could have been issued to the appellant without first issuing the
mandatory notice in GST ASMT-10 Form.
The case put up by the appellant before this Court is that the Proper
Officer did not apply his mind and that the learned Single Judge did not
deal with any such issues/materials except the jurisdictional authority of
the officer in issuing the consolidated notice for multiple financial years.
Mr. Das therefore laments that the learned Single Judge stopped at
the threshold issue when the other issues were equally important and
could have been adjudicated under Article 226 jurisdiction.
After having heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr.
Keyal, learned senior Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 5, we are of the
view that the issues raised by the appellant can very effectively be
decided by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
We have noticed that liberty was granted to the appellant to prefer
an appeal within 30 (thirty) days, which was directed to be heard on
merits without insisting on limitation. It was also clarified by the learned
Single Judge that the interim protection would continue till the stay
application filed on behalf of the appellant was considered and an order
was passed by the appellate authority.
Since the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge has been
questioned before this Court, we only deem it appropriate to further
extend the period granted to the appellant, by directing that in case the
Page No.# 6/6
appellant prefers a statutory appeal within three weeks (21 days), to be
counted from today, it shall be taken up by the appellate authority
without insisting on limitation, and no coercive steps shall be taken
against the appellant till the time the stay application preferred by the
appellant is decided.
This appeal stands disposed off with the afore-noted modification of
the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant
