Shri Swastik Traders vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court held that while the Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal is currently non-functional, it is expected to become operational soon with the appointment of a Vice President. Given this, and the existence of a statutory remedy of appeal, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The Court disposed of the petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an appeal as per the circular dated July 11, 2024, and the notification dated September 17, 2025, within the stipulated period. The Court directed that upon the Vice President taking office, all objections raised by the petitioner in their appeal would be considered and decided by the Appellate Tribunal in accordance with the law. This order is contingent on the petitioner's statutory compliance, including depositing the pre-deposit amount. If the petitioner fails to file the appeal within the prescribed limitation period or fails to deposit the required amount, the State would be at liberty to proceed with recovery. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition is generally not maintainable when an efficacious statutory remedy, even if temporarily unavailable, is expected to become functional.

Facts

The petitioner, Shri Swastik Traders, challenges two orders: one dated July 24, 2024, from the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax demanding Rs. 3,38,75,200, and another dated June 18, 2025, from the Joint Commissioner of State Tax rejecting the petitioner's appeal as time-barred. The petitioner claims to have filed all GST returns. A notice in Form ASMT-10 was issued, followed by a notice under Section 73(8) of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, for alleged short payment of tax, non-consideration of credit notes, excess ITC claim, and non-payment of RCM liability, totaling Rs. 1,83,01,131, plus interest, penalty, and late fees. The petitioner attributes non-compliance to serious illness. The petitioner also points to a prior order from a Deputy Commissioner dated March 16, 2023, which allegedly dropped a notice finding no discrepancies.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Joint Commissioner are illegal and perverse, particularly in light of a prior order by the Deputy Commissioner finding no discrepancies in the petitioner's returns? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and administrative hierarchy). 2. Whether the writ petition is maintainable given the existence of a statutory remedy of appeal before the Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, even if currently non-functional? (Question of law, concerning the scope of writ jurisdiction when alternative remedies exist). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that the impugned orders are illegal and perverse because a superior officer (Deputy Commissioner) had previously found no discrepancies in their returns. They argue that junior officers should not have issued subsequent notices, and the current orders contradict the earlier finding. They also assert the writ petition is maintainable as the orders are against the law. Respondent-State's arguments: The respondent-State argues that the earlier notice from the Deputy Commissioner pertained to a different issue, and the subsequent notices were for distinct matters, thus not comparable. They maintain that the petitioner failed to appear despite repeated notices, leading to the ex-parte order. Furthermore, they argue the writ petition is not maintainable because an appeal lies before the Appellate Tribunal, and the petitioner's appeal was rightly rejected as time-barred. They cite a notification dated September 17, 2025, allowing appeals under Section 112 of the CGST Act by June 30, 2026, and a circular dated July 11, 2024, clarifying pre-deposit payment procedures for appeals.