M/S New Aman Steel Through Its Sole Proprietor Jainabi vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court, considering the non-functioning of the GST Appellate Tribunal, did not delve into the merits of the impugned orders. Instead, it granted the petitioner liberty to avail the remedy provided in paragraph 3 of the Circular No. 224/18/2024-GST dated July 11, 2024. This circular, as noted by the Court, provides that if an appeal is filed in accordance with Section 112(8) of the CGST Act with the prescribed pre-deposit, recovery proceedings for the balance amount shall be deemed stayed until the appeal's disposal, as per Section 112(9) of the CGST Act. The Court's decision is based on facilitating a procedural recourse for the petitioner in the absence of the statutory appellate forum. The ratio decidendi is that in situations where a statutory appellate tribunal is non-functional, High Courts may direct parties to follow alternative procedural guidelines issued by the revenue to manage pending matters and recovery, without prejudice to the eventual merits of the case.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s New Aman Steel, filed a writ petition challenging 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 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, which provides 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 orders of the assessing and appellate authorities under the GST Act when the statutory remedy of appeal to the GST Appellate Tribunal is unavailable due to the Tribunal not functioning? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that due to the non-functioning of the GST Appellate Tribunal, the statutory remedy under Section 112 of the GST Act is not available, necessitating recourse to the writ jurisdiction of 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 outlines procedures for recovery of dues in such circumstances, particularly referencing guidelines for cases where the first appeal has been disposed of and the appellate tribunal is not operational.