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

Held

The Court, considering that the GST Appellate Tribunal was not functioning, acknowledged the petitioner's predicament regarding the unavailability of the statutory appeal remedy under Section 112 of the CGST Act. The Court took note of 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. Specifically, the Court referred to paragraph 3 of the circular, which states that if an appeal is filed in accordance with sub-section (8) of Section 112 of the CGST Act with the prescribed pre-deposit, recovery proceedings for the balance amount shall be deemed to be stayed until the disposal of the appeal, as per sub-section (9) of Section 112. The Court, without examining the merits of the impugned orders, granted the petitioner liberty to avail the remedy as provided in paragraph 3 of the said circular. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with this liberty.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s New Aman Steel, 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 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 brought to the Court's notice 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 operational.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner can maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders of the assessing officer and appellate authority 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 due to the non-functioning of the GST Appellate Tribunal, the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 112 of the CGST Act is not available, 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 or unavailable. Revenue/State's contention: The State brought to the Court's notice Circular No. 224/18/2024-GST dated July 11, 2024, which outlines a procedure for recovery of dues in such circumstances, suggesting an alternative mechanism provided by the revenue authorities.