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

Held

The Court, without examining the merits of the impugned order, 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 states that if a person files an appeal in accordance with Section 112(8) of the CGST Act, on 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 disposed of the writ petition with this liberty granted to the petitioner, effectively directing the petitioner to follow the procedure outlined in the circular as an interim measure in lieu of the non-functional appellate tribunal.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Taj Stone and Marbles, through its sole proprietor Arbaz Mansuri, filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging orders passed by the assessing officer and the appellate authority under the GST Act. The petitioner stated that an appeal to the GST Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the GST Act was the available remedy against the appellate authority's order. However, due to the non-functioning of the Tribunal, this remedy was unavailable. The State counsel brought to the court's notice Circular No. 224/18/2024-GST dated July 11, 2024, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, 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 yet 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 under the GST Act when the statutory remedy of appeal to the GST Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the CGST Act is unavailable due to the Tribunal not functioning? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that since the GST Appellate Tribunal is not functioning, the statutory remedy of appeal is unavailable, necessitating recourse to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Revenue/State's contention: The State counsel relied on 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 operational. This circular outlines a procedure for dealing with such situations, including provisions for stay of recovery proceedings upon payment of pre-deposit.