M/S Heavy Engineering Corporation Co. vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Heavy Engineering Corporation Co., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 19.09.2025 passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Central GST (Appeals), Raipur. This appellate order dismissed the petitioner's appeal on grounds of limitation. The petitioner's original grievance stemmed from a recovery order dated 27.10.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, demanding Rs. 72,24,555/- plus interest and penalty, which the petitioner claims was issued without providing an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner argued that the company was not in operation and the premises were locked, leading to their unawareness of the initial order, and thus, the appeal was filed late.

Held

The Court held that a statutory remedy of appeal before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal is available to the petitioner under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017. Although the Tribunal is currently non-functional, the respondents informed the Court that a Vice President is expected to be appointed soon, making it operational. Given the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal as per the circular dated 11.07.2024 and notification dated 17.09.2025 within the stipulated period. The appeal, once filed and upon the Vice President entering office, will be considered and decided by the Appellate Tribunal. This order is subject to the petitioner's statutory compliance, including depositing the pre-deposit amount. If the petitioner fails to file the appeal within the prescribed period or deposit the required amount, the respondent authorities are at liberty to proceed with recovery.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal to the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal is available under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued for quashing the impugned orders and remanding the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fair opportunity of hearing, implying that the available remedies were either inadequate or that the circumstances warranted extraordinary jurisdiction. They also sought interim protection. Revenue's contention: The respondents argued that the impugned order is challengeable before the appellate tribunal as provided under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. They highlighted a notification dated 17.09.2025 and a circular dated 11.07.2024, which provide a mechanism for filing appeals before the tribunal, even though it is not yet fully operational, with a deadline of 30.06.2026.