Abhay Parakh vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The High Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable because an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner. The Court considered the notification dated September 17, 2025, and the circular dated July 11, 2024, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue (Central), which provide a statutory appeal mechanism before the Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. Although the Tribunal was not functional at the time, the Court was informed that the Vice President was expected to be appointed soon, making the Tribunal operational. Therefore, the Court did not entertain the writ petition. The petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal as per the circular and notification within the stipulated period. The Court directed that upon the Vice President's appointment, all objections raised by the petitioner in the appeal would be considered and decided by the Appellate Tribunal in accordance with the law. This order is subject to the petitioner's statutory compliance, including depositing the pre-deposit amount as per Section 112(9) of the CGST Act, 2017, which would then stay the recovery of the remaining demand until the appeal is decided. If the petitioner fails to file the appeal within the prescribed period or deposit the required amount, the State would be at liberty to proceed with recovery.

Facts

The petitioner, Abhay Parakh, proprietor of Madhu Traders, filed a writ petition challenging orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (Respondent No. 4) and the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals) (Respondent No. 3). The Assistant Commissioner passed an ex-parte order on December 4, 2023, alleging excess claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC) and reverse charge liability totaling Rs. 14,75,722/- and Rs. 22,342/- respectively, leading to a demand of Rs. 31,36,060/-. The petitioner contended that he had already reversed excess ITC and paid GST under reverse charge, and that the accountant responsible for GST matters had left abruptly. His appeal before the Joint Commissioner was rejected on June 13, 2025, due to delay. The petitioner argued that both orders were perverse and illegal, as he had paid all taxes.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the existence of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal before the Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, as per Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017, and the clarifications issued by the Central Government through a notification dated September 17, 2025, and a circular dated July 11, 2024? Petitioner's contention: The writ petition is maintainable because the impugned orders passed by the respondents are against the law. Revenue/State's contention: The writ petition is not maintainable because a statutory appeal remedy is available before the Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The State referred to a notification dated September 17, 2025, allowing appeals to be filed by June 30, 2026, and a circular dated July 11, 2024, clarifying the procedure for pre-deposit and stay of recovery under Section 112(8) and 112(9) of the CGST Act, 2017.