M/S Taj Stone And Marbles Through Its Sole Proprietor Arbaz Mansuri vs. Union Of INDIA Through

Held

The Court, without examining the merits of the impugned orders, granted liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy as provided in para 3 of the Circular No. 224/18/2024 - GST dated July 11, 2024. This circular, as per Clause 4 of the judgment, states that if a person files an appeal in accordance with Section 112(8) of the CGST Act upon payment of the prescribed pre-deposit, the recovery proceedings for the balance amount shall be deemed to be stayed until the disposal of the appeal, as per Section 112(9) of the CGST Act. The Court's decision is based on the availability of this alternative recourse suggested by the circular, rather than a determination on the validity of the original orders or the petitioner's right to approach the High Court directly. The writ petition was disposed of with this liberty granted.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Taj Stone and Marbles, through its sole proprietor Arbaz Mansuri, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore. The petition challenged orders passed by the assessing officer and the appellate authority under the GST Act. The petitioner noted that while an appeal to the GST Appellate Tribunal was available under Section 112 of the GST Act, this remedy was not accessible as the Tribunal was not functioning. The State's counsel brought to the Court's attention Circular No. 224/18/2024 - GST dated July 11, 2024, issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, providing guidelines for recovery of outstanding dues when the first appeal has been disposed of and the appellate tribunal is not operational.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner can maintain a writ petition before the High Court challenging the orders of the assessing officer and appellate authority when the statutory remedy of appeal to the GST Appellate Tribunal is available but not functional. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that due to the non-functioning of the GST Appellate Tribunal, the statutory remedy of appeal is unavailable, necessitating recourse to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The petitioner relied on the principle that writ jurisdiction can be invoked when statutory remedies are rendered ineffective. Revenue/State's contention: The State brought to the Court's notice Circular No. 224/18/2024 - GST dated July 11, 2024, which provides guidelines for recovery of outstanding dues in cases where the first appeal has been disposed of and the appellate tribunal is not functioning. This circular outlines a procedure for dealing with such situations, including the stay of recovery proceedings under certain conditions as per Section 112(9) of the CGST Act.