Aurora Piping Products LLP vs. Joint Commissioner Of State Tax Raigad Division And Anr

Held

The Court did not decide the issue of limitation on merits. Instead, it focused on the procedural remedy available to the Petitioner. The Court noted that the Petitioner has a further remedy of appeal before the GST Tribunal, but acknowledged its non-constitution. Following a similar order in another writ petition, the Court disposed of the present petition by granting the Petitioner liberty to follow the procedure outlined in Trade Circular No. 21 T of 2024. This circular provides guidelines for recovery of outstanding dues when the first appeal has been disposed of, pending the constitution and operationalization of the GST Tribunal. The Court explicitly left all contentions of the parties on merits open and also permitted the Petitioner to apply for adjustment of any pre-deposit amount already made.

Facts

The Petitioner, Aurora Piping Products LLP, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated August 21, 2025, passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Raigad Division. The Appellate Authority dismissed the Petitioner's appeal on the grounds of delay. The Petitioner contended that if the limitation period is calculated from the date of communication of the original order, the appeal would not be barred by limitation. However, the Petitioner also stated that the GST Tribunal, where a further appeal could be filed, is not yet constituted or functional, leaving them without an efficacious remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner's appeal before the Appellate Authority was barred by limitation, considering the date of communication of the original order? The Petitioner argued that the appeal was within the limitation period if calculated from the date of communication of the original order. The Respondent did not present arguments on this specific point in the judgment. 2. Whether the Petitioner has an efficacious remedy available given the non-constitution of the GST Tribunal? The Petitioner argued that due to the Tribunal's non-functioning, they lack an effective remedy. The Respondent relied on Trade Circular No. 21 T of 2024, suggesting a procedure to be followed in such circumstances.