Chetankumar Jasraj Palgota HUF Prop. Of Chamunda Bullion vs. State Of Maharashtra And Ors

Held

The Court declined to entertain the writ petition. While acknowledging that the statutory remedy of appeal to the GST Tribunal exists, the Court noted that the Petitioner had not instituted an appeal because the Tribunal is not functional. The Court took cognizance of the Trade Circular dated 13 August 2024, issued by the Commissioner of State Tax, Maharashtra. This circular provides that no recoveries would be made in pursuance of demand notices until the Tribunal is functional and an appeal is instituted. Accordingly, the Court granted the Petitioner liberty to take necessary steps in terms of the aforementioned Trade Circular. All contentions of both parties were expressly left open. The writ petition was disposed of on this basis.

Facts

The Petitioner, Chetankumar Jasraj Palgota HUF, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated 18 April 2024. The Petitioner's counsel argued that while an appeal to the GST Tribunal was the statutory remedy, the Tribunal was not functional. The Respondent-State, through its Additional Government Pleader, referred to a Trade Circular dated 13 August 2024 issued by the Commissioner of State Tax, Maharashtra. This circular stipulated that no recoveries would be made pursuant to demand notices until the Tribunal becomes functional and an appeal is filed. The Petitioner was granted liberty to take steps in accordance with this circular.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to maintain a writ petition before this Court when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal to the GST Tribunal is available, as per Section 109 of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The Petitioner argued that the statutory remedy of appeal to the GST Tribunal is rendered ineffective as the Tribunal is not functional. Therefore, the writ jurisdiction of this Court should be invoked. Respondent-State's contention: The Respondent-State, relying on the Trade Circular dated 13 August 2024, submitted that it has provided a mechanism to address the non-functionality of the Tribunal. The circular allows for the deferral of recoveries upon the Petitioner taking specific steps, thereby mitigating the immediate prejudice. The State did not argue against the existence of the statutory remedy but highlighted the circular as a mitigating factor.