M/S Gopal Prasad Sharma vs Union Of India on 20 May, 2025

Chattisgarh High Court

M/S Gopal Prasad Sharma vs Union Of India on 20 May, 2025

                                        1/3




       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                               WPT No. 78 of 2025

             M/S GOPAL PRASAD SHARMA versus UNION OF INDIA


                                   Order Sheet


20/05/2025           Mr. Anurag Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.

                     Mr. Rishabh Deo Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Adv on behalf of Mr. Maneesh Sharma,

learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4.

Heard.

Issue notice to respondents.

Mr. Singh and Mr. Tamaskar accept notice on behalf of

respective respondents, therefore, PF need not be paid, they seek and

are granted 3 weeks’ time to file reply.

Also heard on I. A. No.1, application for grant of interim relief.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that challenge in this

writ petition is to an order dated 17.03.2022 passed by respondent

No.2/ Deputy Commissioner whereby a demand of service tax of

Rs.35,82,002/- was imposed and directed to be recovered from the
2/3

petitioner under proviso of Section 73 (1) r/w Section 72 of the Finance

Act, 1994 and Section 174 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act,

2017, apart from this, various penalties were also imposed. He further

submits that before passing such an order, the principle of natural

justice has not been complied with and no notice was ever served to the

petitioner. He submits that in the impugned order, the address of the

petitioner was shown to be Raigarh, whereas the petitioner is a resident

of Jashpur and filing his income tax return. Therefore, even if any

notices for the proceeding were issued, that was never served upon the

petitioner, neither the impugned order was served upon the petitioner

and later on, the same was obtained by the petitioner. He submits that

even otherwise, the petitioner is not liable to pay service tax being a

contractor in light of the notification dated 20.06.2012 issued by the

Government of India which is filed as Annexure P-5. He further

submits that various petitions have been filed and in an identical

petition bearing WPT No. 135/2025, this Court has protected the

petitioner therein with interim order.

Learned counsel for the respondents oppose the submissions

and submits that from perusal of impugned order it appears that the

impugned order was passed in the year 2022 which is challenged after

lapse of about 3 years.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, considering the

nature of dispute and also in light of order passed in WPT No. 135 of
3/3

2024 dated 26.07.2024, this Court is of the opinion that prima-facie

case of interim relief is made out. Therefore, till next date of hearing

purely as an interim measure, no coercive step shall be taken against

the petitioner at the strength of impugned order dated 17.03.2022

(Annexure P-1).

List this case in week commencing 30th June, 2025.

In view of above, I. A. No.3 & I. A. No. 4 stand disposed of.

Digitally
signed by
PARUL
PARUL MITTAL
MITTAL Date:

Sd/-

2025.05.21
15:26:02
+0530
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge
Parul