Ms Sai Steel Industries Through Authorized Signatory Ratan Shrivastav vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court did not examine the merits of the impugned orders. Instead, it considered the Circular No. 224/18/2024 - GST dated 11th July, 2024, issued by the Government of India. Specifically, the Court referred to para 3 of the circular, which states that if a person files an appeal in accordance with sub-section (8) of Section 112 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 sub-section (9) of Section 112 of the CGST Act. Based on this circular, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to avail the remedy provided in para 3 of the said circular. The writ petition was disposed of with this liberty, without delving into the substantive issues raised by the petitioner.

Facts

The petitioner, MS Sai Steel Industries, 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 acknowledged 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, the petitioner stated that this remedy was unavailable as the Tribunal was not functioning. The State brought to the Court's notice Circular No. 224/18/2024 - GST dated 11th July, 2024, issued by the Government of India, 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 the orders of the assessing officer and appellate authority when an alternative remedy of appeal to the GST Appellate Tribunal is provided under Section 112 of the CGST Act, despite the Tribunal not functioning? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the writ petition was maintainable because the statutory remedy of appeal to the GST Appellate Tribunal was unavailable due to the Tribunal not functioning. Revenue's contention: The State relied on Circular No. 224/18/2024 - GST dated 11th July, 2024, which provides guidelines for recovery proceedings in such circumstances, suggesting a procedural path for the petitioner.