Lingraj Steel And Power PVT. LTD., 319, Lingraj Steel, Samta Colony, Raipur (C G) vs. Assistant Commissioner S G S T

Facts

The petitioner, Lingraj Steel And Power Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. The respondents were the Assistant Commissioner SGST, Circle-9, Raipur, the Commissioner, State Tax (SGST), Chhattisgarh, and the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), SGST. The petitioner sought permission to file an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal, which had become functional. The revenue had no objection to this request. The writ petition was filed challenging an order or action by one of the respondent authorities, though the specific order, tax period, amount in dispute, and procedural history leading to the writ petition are not detailed in the provided text.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner should be permitted to prefer an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's request and the respondent's lack of objection. The Court granted permission for the petitioner to file the appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal within 30 days from the date of the order. This permission was accompanied by a direction to file an application for grant of stay along with the appeal. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts can grant liberty to approach a specialized appellate tribunal when it becomes functional, facilitating the intended dispute resolution mechanism. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted permission to prefer an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal, given that the Tribunal is now functional? This issue turns on the procedural flexibility available to the High Court in writ proceedings and the intent behind establishing the GST Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner argued for this permission, emphasizing the Tribunal's operational status. The respondent revenue authority did not object to the petitioner's prayer. No specific provisions of the CGST/SGST Act or Rules were explicitly discussed in relation to this procedural request, nor were any specific circulars or precedents cited by either party.