Nbcc ( INDIA) Limited vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, NBCC (India) Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated August 18, 2025, passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), State Tax, Bilaspur, under Section 107 of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This appellate order upheld a demand order dated August 29, 2024, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Raigarh Circle, for the tax period April 2019 to March 2020. The demand order, DRC-07, was for Rs. 34,35,965.30. The petitioner contended that both orders suffered from statutory violations, non-application of mind, and breaches of natural justice, particularly alleging a lack of proper hearing and consideration of documents by the appellate authority. The State argued that the petitioner failed to produce documents before the authorities.

Held

The High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy. The Court noted that while the Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was not presently functional, it was expected to become operational soon with the appointment of a Vice President. The Court referred to the circular dated July 11, 2024, and the notification dated September 17, 2025, which provide a procedure for filing appeals before the Tribunal and obtaining a stay on recovery upon making the pre-deposit. 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 Court directed that all objections raised by the petitioner in the appeal would be considered and decided by the Appellate Tribunal in accordance with law, subject to the petitioner complying with the statutory requirement of Section 112(8) of the CGST Act, 2017, for pre-deposit. The statutory stay under Section 112(9) would remain in operation until the appeal was decided. The Court clarified that if the appeal was not filed within the prescribed period or if the pre-deposit was not made, the State would be at liberty to proceed with recovery.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable given the existence of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal before the Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, as provided under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017, and relevant circulars and notifications? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The writ petition is maintainable because the impugned orders were passed against the law and suffered from illegality and perversity, including violations of natural justice. The petitioner argued that the statutory remedy was not efficacious in this case. Respondent's contention: The writ petition is not maintainable as an alternative statutory remedy is available. The State relied 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 taxpayers to file appeals before the Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, even if it is not yet fully functional, and to avail stay on recovery upon pre-deposit. The State argued that the petitioner could avail this remedy.