Rajeshwari Plastics Private Limited vs. Commissioner, State GST

Facts

The petitioner, Rajeshwari Plastics Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Chhattisgarh High Court challenging an Order-in-Appeal (OIA) dated 29.09.2023 and an application for condonation of delay (APL-04) dated 06.10.2023. The petitioner sought to set aside these orders and quash the proceedings, alleging a violation of natural justice due to the non-issuance of a proper show cause notice. The petitioner also prayed for a direction to the respondents to issue detailed show cause notices before any recovery of tax. The respondents are the Commissioner, State GST, and the Assistant Commissioner, State GST.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order is appealable under Section 112 of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's submission that the order is appealable and their intention to file an appeal before the Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. Citing a previous order in WPT No. 40/2023, the Court directed that the petitioner would file an appeal as soon as the President or State President of the Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal enters office. The appeal is to be decided on its merits. The statutory stay under Section 112(9) of the Act of 2017 will remain in operation until the appeal is decided. If the appeal is not filed within the prescribed limitation period, the State can proceed with recovery. The Court also stipulated that if the amount required for filing the appeal is not deposited within 15 days, this order would not provide any protection. The Court did not explicitly decide on the issue of violation of natural justice or the non-issuance of a show cause notice, as the matter was disposed of on the availability of an alternative remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order (OIA dated 29.09.2023) is appealable under Section 112 of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief in the present writ petition, considering the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal? The petitioner argued that the impugned order is appealable under Section 112 of the Act of 2017. They relied on a previous order of the High Court in WPT No. 40/2023, which permitted a petitioner to file an appeal before the Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner stated their intention to deposit the mandatory 20% of the tax amount required for filing an appeal within one week. The respondents, represented by the learned State Counsel, did not oppose this proposition.