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

Held

The Court, without examining the merits of the impugned orders, granted liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy as provided in paragraph 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 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 was based on the availability of this alternative recourse provided by the respondent, rather than a determination on the substantive issues of the case. The writ petition was disposed of with this liberty granted.

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 noted that an appeal was available before the GST Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the GST Act, but this remedy was not accessible as the Tribunal was not functioning. The State brought to the Court's attention Circular No. 224/18/2024 - GST dated July 11, 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 avail a remedy before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when a statutory appeal to the GST Appellate Tribunal is provided under Section 112 of the GST Act, but the Tribunal is not functioning? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that due to the non-functioning of the GST Appellate Tribunal, the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 112 of the GST Act 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 infructuous. Revenue/State's Argument: The State did not argue against the petitioner's right to approach the High Court but instead brought to the Court's notice Circular No. 224/18/2024 - GST dated July 11, 2024, which provides a mechanism for recovery proceedings in cases where the first appeal is disposed of and the Appellate Tribunal is not operational. The State highlighted paragraph 3 of this circular.