Chattisgarh High Court
Ultratech Cement Limited vs Union Of India on 1 July, 2025
1/4
AVINASH HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SHARMA
Digitally signed by
WPT No. 90 of 2025
AVINASH
SHARMA
Date: 2025.07.02
15:20:26 +0530
ULTRATECH CEMENT LIMITED versus UNION OF
INDIA and Others
Order Sheet
01.07.2025 Shri Bharat Ray Chandani appears through V.C. with
Shri K.Rohan, counsel for the petitioner.
None for Respondent No.1/Union of India.
Ms. Anuradha Jain, PL for State/Respondent No.2. Shri Maneesh Sharma, counsel for the Respondent No.3 to 5.
Heard.
Since Ms. Jain, PL accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No.2 and Shri Sharma accepts notice on behalf of Respondent Nos.3 to 5, no formal step is required.
Issue notice to Respondent No.1-Union of India, as per rules.
Shri Bharat Ray Chandani, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that power under Section 74 of CGST Act, 2017 (henceforth "the Act, 2017") has been wrongly exercised by the Authorities and the said Section attracts only when the taxation Officer finds that any tax has not been paid 2/4 or short paid or erroneously refunded or where input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilized by reason of fraud or any wilful-misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax. He further submits that petitioner has already paid the GST along with interest prior to the issuance of show-cause notice and similar issue is pending consideration and subjudice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He further refers to the order dated 13.12.2024 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).37326/2017 in the matter of Udaipur Chambers of Commerce and Industry & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., wherein, counsel appearing for the Union of India is directed to furnish list of cases arising under Service Tax and list of cases arising under Goods and Service Tax (GST) so that the cases can be separated.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the order dated 17.01.2025 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in the matter of Rainbow Infrastructure vs. Union of India & Ors. in R/Special Civil Application No.536/2025, wherein, the Authorities have invoked the powers under Section 74 of the Act, 2017 for levy of GST on the royalty paid by the petitioner for quarry lease granted by the State Government. In the said case, a stay has been granted in favour of the petitioner. Similarly, the High Court of Delhi has passed order dated 29.05.2025 in the matter of M/s Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited vs. Additional Commissioner, CGST, Delhi West Commissionerate & Ors in WPC No.7798/2025. Further, he refers to the order dated 03.01.2024 in the matter of M/s Rajasthan Mineral 3/4 and Company vs. The Union of Indian & Ors in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).28263/2023, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued notice to Union of India & Ors and stayed recovery of service tax on grant of mining lease/royalty payable by the petitioner. Lastly, he submits that considering the backdrop, interim relief may be granted.
Shri Maneesh Sharma, counsel for Respondent Nos.3 to 5 submits that under Section 112 (8) of the Act, 2017 no appeal shall be filed under sub-section (1), unless the appellant has paid- (a) in full, such part of the amount of tax, interest, fine, fee and penalty arising from the impugned order, as is admitted by him, and (b) a sum equal to ten per cent of the remaining amount of tax in dispute, in addition to the amount paid under sub-section (6) of section 107, arising from the said order, subject to a maximum of twenty crore rupees, in relation to which the appeal has been filed. As such, the petitioner may be directed to deposit 10% of the penalty. He also submits that there is vacancy of Chairman in the State Tribunal.
Shri Sharma further submits that the issue involved in the present matter is not involved in the issue pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Authorities have rightly exercised the powers under Section 74 of the Act, 2017.
Ms. Jain, PL for State/respondent would support the submission put forth by counsel for the respondent Nos.3 to 5.
Replying the submission put forth by counsel for respondent Nos. 3 to 5, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, in para 9.7, it has specifically been pleaded 4/4 that the matter is subjudice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, considering their submissions, particularly considering that there is vacancy of Chairman in the State Tribunal as also the language of Section 74 of the Act, 2017 on reading of which, it is explicit that unless there is fraud or any wilful- misstatement or suppression of facts, the said Section would not attract and further considering the plea taken by the petitioner that similar nature of issue is pending before different high Courts and in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that a strong case is made out in favour of the petitioner for grant of interim relief.
On due consideration, Instant Petition is admitted for hearing.
Purely as an interim measure, it is directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner in the teeth of final order which has been passed, till the next date of hearing.
Accordingly, I.A. No.1/2025, application for stay/interim relief is disposed of.
Reply be filed within 6 weeks.
List thereafter.
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash