Abhay Parakh vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable because an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal before the Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal is available to the petitioner. Although the Tribunal is currently non-functional, the Court was informed that the Vice President is expected to be appointed soon, making the Tribunal operational. The Court relied on the notification dated September 17, 2025, and the circular dated July 11, 2024, which provide a procedure for taxpayers to file appeals and avail benefits like stay of recovery. The reasoning is that the existence of a statutory remedy, even if temporarily unavailable, bars the exercise of writ jurisdiction unless there are exceptional circumstances. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts should generally relegate parties to statutory remedies where they exist, especially when mechanisms are in place to address the temporary non-functionality of appellate bodies. The Court disposed of the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal as per the circular and notification within the stipulated period. The appeal will be considered and decided by the Appellate Tribunal once it becomes operational. The order is subject to the petitioner's statutory compliance, including depositing the pre-deposit amount. If the appeal is not filed within the prescribed limitation, the State can 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 issued a notice under Section 73(1) of the CGGST Act, 2017, alleging short payment of tax, non-consideration of credit notes, and excess claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC) totaling Rs. 61,60,638, along with Reverse Charge (RCM) of Rs. 24,174. The petitioner claims to have paid most of the tax and that the balance was covered by his credit ledger. He also asserts that alleged excess ITC was due to a time difference in vendor filings and that RCM was already paid. An ex-parte order was passed by Respondent No. 4 due to the petitioner's inability to comply with the notice due to illness. The appeal filed by the petitioner before Respondent No. 3 was rejected on grounds of delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal before the Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal is available, despite the Tribunal being non-functional? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The writ petition is maintainable because the impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities are perverse and illegal, as the petitioner has already paid all taxes, including an excess amount, and the demand is unjustified. The petitioner argues that the orders were passed against the law. Respondent-State's contention: The writ petition is not maintainable as there is an efficacious statutory remedy available to the petitioner. The State relies on a notification dated September 17, 2025, and a circular dated July 11, 2024, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue (Central), which provide a mechanism for filing appeals before the Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, even if it is not yet fully operational. These provisions allow for pre-deposit payments and stay of recovery.