M/S. Nutan Ispat And Power PVT. LTD. vs. Assistant Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Nutan Ispat And Power Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh challenging an order dated 08.11.2021 passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeal), State Tax, Raipur, under Section 107 of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner sought to set aside the order and quash the proceedings, alleging a violation of natural justice due to the non-issuance of a detailed show cause notice. The petitioner also prayed for a direction to the respondents to issue detailed show cause notices through the GSTN Portal before any recovery of tax is made. The petition was filed because the Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, though notified in Chhattisgarh, had not yet had its President or members appointed, preventing the petitioner from filing a second appeal.

Held

The Court held that given the non-functional status of the Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in Chhattisgarh due to the absence of appointed President or members, the writ petition is maintainable. The Court took note of its own previous orders and those of co-ordinate benches dealing with similar circumstances where the statutory appellate remedy was unavailable. The Court also considered the order dated 03.12.2019 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, the notification dated 17.09.2025, and a circular dated 11.07.2024. The Court directed that as soon as the President or State President enters office of the GST Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner may invoke the provision for filing an appeal after making the statutory deposit. The concerned Authority shall decide such appeal strictly in accordance with law. The statutory stay under Section 112(9) of the Act, 2017, would remain in operation until the appeal is decided. The Court clarified that if the appeal is not filed within the prescribed limitation, the State can proceed with recovery. It was also clarified that if the statutory deposit is not made within 30 days, the order would lose efficacy, though the petitioner stated they had already made the deposit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition when an alternative remedy of appeal to the Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal is available under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017, given that the Tribunal is not functional in the State? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 112). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the writ petition is maintainable due to the non-functional status of the GST Appellate Tribunal in Chhattisgarh. They relied on this Court's previous orders in WPT No.91/2021 and a co-ordinate bench's order in WPT No.40/2023, which acknowledged similar situations. They also cited a Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs order dated 03.12.2019 (Order No.09/2019-Central Tax) and a notification dated 17.09.2025, which provided for the extension of limitation for filing appeals when the Tribunal is not constituted, by considering the date of the President/State President entering office as the start of the limitation period. Revenue's arguments: The State-respondent did not oppose the prayer made by the petitioner.