1 2025:CGHC:56016 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPT No. 174 of 2025 1 - Shri Swastik Traders Shop No. 30, Raipur Road, Dhamtari, A Partnership Firm, Through Its Partner Santosh Parakh, S/o Late Kanhaiyalal Parakh, Aged About 78 Years, R/o Sant Lahri Nagar, Dhamtari, Chhattisgahr. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Principal Secretary, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Commissioner Of State Tax Chhattisgarh Mahanadi Bhawan Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Joint Commissioner Of State Tax (Appeals) Raipur, Division-1, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax Dhamtari Circle, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Mool Chand Jain, Advocate For State/Respondent/s : Ms. Anuradha Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.11.22 15:20:44 +0530 2 18/11/2025 1. Heard. 2. Issue notice to the respondents as per rules. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents accepts notice, therefore, issuance of notice is dispensed with. 4. The writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner challenging order dated 24.07.2024 (Annexure P/7) passed by respondent No.4/Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Dhamtari Circle (C.G.) and order dated 18.06.2025 (Annexure P/12) passed by respondent No.3/Joint Commissioner of State Tax on behalf of Appellate Authority. Vide order dated 24.07.2024 (Annexure P/7) respondent No.4 raised demand against the petitioner to the tune of Rs.3,38,75,200/- and an appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 24.07.2024 has been rejected vide order dated 18.06.2025 (Annexure P/12), by the respondent No.3. 5. The petitioner has filed instant writ petition seeking following relief(s) : “That in the light of the facts and circumstances mentioned above the Hon’ble High Court may graciously be pleased to issue suitable directions, orders or writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari, prohibition etc. to set aside the impugned orders passed by respondents No.3 & 4. It is also prayed to kindly grant any other relief, which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit.” 3 6. Facts of the case leading to file the instant petition are that the petitioner has filed all the returns under GST Act, viz. - GSTR-1, 3B, 9 & 9C. After scrutinizing of the returns and for the verification of the figures shown in return, notice (Annexure P/5) in From ASMT-10 was issued on 17.05.2024 to the petitioner, which could not be replied. Thereafter, notice under Section 73(8) of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (henceforth referred to as ‘Act, 2017’) read with Rule 142(1)(a) was issued in Form No. DRC-01 asking him as to why demand for short payment of tax, non-consideration of credit notes, excess claim of ITC under IGST, CGST & SGST, non payment of RCM liability, amounting to total of Rs.1,83,01,131/-, interest of Rs.1,37,42,353/-, penalty of Rs.18,31,516/- and late fees of Rs.200/- should not be raised. Because of the serious illness of the petitioner, he could not comply with the notices and ex-parte order has been passed by the respondent No.4, against which appeal filed by the petitioner before the respondent No.3 has been rejected. Since GST Tribunal is not functional, hence this writ petition has been filed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that earlier vide order dated 16.03.2023 (Annexure P/4), Deputy Commissioner of State Tax has dropped the notice, finding that there is no discrepancies in the return filed by the petitioner and the petitioner is availing the ITC. Thereafter, respondent No.4 has issued notice dated 17.05.2024 (Annexure P/5) and second notice dated 4 29.05.2024 (Annexure P/6). Because of the illness, the petitioner could not appear, therefore, impugned order dated 24.07.2024 (Annexure P/7) has been passed by respondent No.4. The appeal filed by the petitioner’s firm has also been dismissed vide order dated 18.06.2025 (Annexure P/12) on the ground of barred by limitation. 7.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since superior officer i.e. Deputy Commissioner has already passed order (Annexure P/4) holding therein that there is no discrepancy in the return filed by the petitioner, thereafter, junior officers have no authority to issue subsequent notices, even then, both the impugned orders Annexure P/7 and Annexure P/12 have been passed which is in contradiction to the earlier order (Annexure P/4) of the Deputy Commissioner. Hence, the impugned orders are perverse and illegal. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the earlier notice (Annexure P/2) issued by Deputy Commissioner of State Tax pertains to a different issue, whereas, subsequent notices (Annexure P/5 and P/6) were issued for different issues. Therefore, the aforesaid notices can not be equated. She further submits that despite repeated service of notices, the petitioner did not appear before the respondent No.4, consequently, the impugned order has been passed by the respondent No.4. She further submits that since appeal filed by the petitioner before the 5 the respondent No.3 was barred by limitation, therefore, the appellate authority has rightly rejected the appeal, hence, this petition is not maintainable. 8.1 On question being put forth by the Court, learned counsel for the respondent-State would submit that against the impugned order passed by Joint Commissioner State Tax, there is a provision of appeal to be filed before Appellate Tribunal. She further submits that there is already a notification issued dated 17th September, 2025 by Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, (Central), under which, the petitioner can file an appeal under Section 112 of CGST Act, 2017 by 30.06.2026. 8.2 Learned counsel for the respondent-State further submits that another circular dated 11th July, 2024 has also been issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Broad of Indirect Taxes and Customs, GST Policy Wing, whereby the Government has clarified the manner of payment, in order to facilitate the Taxpayers to make the payment of amount of pre-deposit as per sub Section (8) of Section 112 of CGST Act, 2017 and to avail benefit of stay from recovery of the remaining amount of confirmed demand as per sub Section 9 of Section 112 of Act, 2017. 9. Relevant paragraphs 4 & 5 of the circular dated 11th July, 2024 is reproduced as under : “4. In order to facilitate the taxpayers to make the payment of the amount of pre-deposit as per sub-section (8) of sec- 6 tion 112 of CGST Act, and to avail the benefit of stay from recovery of the remaining amount of confirmed demand as per sub-section (9) of section 112 of CGST Act, it is hereby clarified that in cases where the taxpayer decides to file an appeal against the order of the appellate authority and wants to make the payment of the amount of pre-deposit as per sub-section (8) of section 112 of CGST Act, he can make the payment of an amount equal to the amount of pre- deposit by navigating to Services >> Ledgers>> Payment towards demand, from his dashboard. The taxpayer would be navigated to Electronic Liability Register (ELL) Part-11 in which he can select the order, out of the outstanding de- mand orders, against which payment is intended to be made. The amount so paid would be mapped against the selected order and demand amount would be reduced in the balance liability in the aforesaid register. The said amount deposited by the taxpayer will be adjusted against the amount of pre-deposit required to be deposited at the time of filing appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. 5. The taxpayer also needs to file an undertaking declaration with the jurisdictional proper officer that he will file appeal against the said order of the appellate authority before the Appellate Tribunal, as and when it comes into operation, within the tunelines mentioned in section 112 of the CGST Act read with Central Goods and Services Tax (Ninth Re- moval of Difficulties) Order, 2019 dated 03.12.2019. On pro- viding the said undertaking and on payment of an amount equal to the amount of pre-deposit as per the procedure mentioned in para 4 above, the recovery of the remaining amount of confirmed demand as per the order of the appel- late authority will stand stayed as per provisions of sub-sec- tion (9) of section 112 of CGST Act.” Hence, she prays that in view of above notifications, this writ petition is not maintainable. 10. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this petition is very well maintainable as impugned orders have been passed against the law. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7 12. Having considered the circular dated 11th July, 2024 and notification dated 17th September, 2025 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue (Central), and in view of the fact that a statutory remedy of appeal before the Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal is provided, though the Tribunal is presently non-functional, but as informed by the counsel for the respondent-State, it is expected that the Vice President will be appointed soon and the Appellate Tribunal will become operational, therefore, I do not feel inclined to entertain this writ petition, as there is efficacious remedy available to the petitioner for redressal of his grievance. 13. 13. In the light of the above, this writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file appeal as per circular dated 11th July, 2024 and notification dated 17th September, 2025 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Finance, (Central) within the stipulated period and as soon as the Vice President enters in the Office of the Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Act, 2017, all the objections raised by the petitioner in the appeal shall be considered and decided by the Appellate Tribunal in accordance with law. This order shall be subject to the statutory compliance by the petitioner, thereafter statutory stay as provided under Section 112(9) of Act, 2017 would remain in operation till the decision on such appeal filed by the petitioner. 8 14. If the appeal is not filed by the petitioner within the prescribed period of limitation, the State would be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner for recovery of remaining taxes, interest and penalty, if any. 15. It is further made clear that if the amount required to file an appeal is not deposited by the petitioner, this order would not come to his rescue. 16. With this observation, this petition stands disposed of and interlocutory application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ravi Mandavi