ASMT-10 Non-Issuance & Denial of Audit Materials: Gauhati High Court Modifies Single Judge's Order in Bitchem Asphalt Case
Case Overview
Case Name: Bitchem Asphalt Technologies Ltd. Vs Union of India And 4 Ors.
Court: Gauhati High Court (Division Bench)
Provisions Involved: Section 61, Section 74, Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017; Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Background of the Dispute
Bitchem Asphalt Technologies Ltd., a company incorporated in 1996 and operating in the road-construction materials segment under its proprietary brand "Bitchem," holds GST registrations across several states in India, including Assam. The company found itself embroiled in a significant tax dispute when a consolidated Show Cause Notice was issued against it under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, on 25.06.2025, covering three consecutive financial years — FY 2018-19, FY 2019-20, and FY 2020-21.
The genesis of the notice lay in a purported Central Excise Revenue Audit, which flagged a discrepancy between the taxable turnover declared in GSTR-9 (annual return) and the figures certified in GSTR-9C (reconciliation statement). The mismatch identified was approximately ₹68.59 crore, on the basis of which the department proposed a GST demand of ₹12.34 crore, along with applicable interest and penalty.
Procedural History
Show Cause Notice and Adjudication Order
Upon receipt of the consolidated Show Cause Notice, the assessee submitted a detailed reply addressing the allegations. However, despite this engagement, no personal hearing was provided to it. On 28.11.2025, the adjudicating authority (Respondent No. 4) passed a consolidated order confirming the entire demand in respect of all three financial years.
Writ Petitions Before Single Judge
Aggrieved by both the Show Cause Notice and the subsequent adjudication order, the assessee approached the Gauhati High Court by filing writ petitions. The learned Single Judge, vide judgment dated 08.06.2026 in WP(C) No. 2922/2025 and connected petitions, declined to adjudicate the substantive issues raised and instead directed the assessee to pursue the statutory appellate remedy available under the CGST Act.
The Single Judge's direction, as recorded in the judgment, read 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."
Issues Raised Before the Division Bench
Dissatisfied with the Single Judge's approach of relegating it to the appellate forum without addressing the core legal questions, the assessee appealed before the Division Bench. The following key issues were pressed before the Court:
1. Validity of a Consolidated Notice and Order for Multiple Financial Years
- Whether a Proper Officer acting under
Section 73orSection 74of the CGST Act is legally empowered to issue a single consolidated Show Cause Notice and pass a single consolidated adjudication order spanning multiple financial years simultaneously.