Statutory Appeal Remedy u/s 112 of CGST Act Bars Writ: Chhattisgarh HC Declines to Interfere in ₹3.38 Cr GST Demand Against Petitioner [Read Order]
While the petitioner argued that junior officers acted without jurisdiction and that illness prevented compliance with notices, the Court directed the firm to pursue its appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal once operational.
The HighCourt of Chhattisgarh declined to interfere with a demand order of ₹3,38,75,200 raised against the petitioner, a partnership firm based in Dhamtari, ruling that the petitioner had a remedy available under section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act to approach the appellate authority.
The writ petition was filed after the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax passed an ex‑parte order on 24 July 2024, which was subsequently upheld by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax on 18 June 2025.
The petitioner Shri Swastik Traders, sought the quashing of both orders, arguing that they were perverse, illegal, and contrary to an earlier order of the Deputy Commissioner who had dropped proceedings in March 2023.
The petitioner contended that once the Deputy Commissioner had found no discrepancies in GST returns, junior officers lacked the authority to issue fresh notices. It was further submitted that due to serious illness, the firm’s partner could not respond to notices issued under Section 73(8) of the CGSTAct, leading to the ex‑parte demand.
Master the Latest Amendments in Income Tax Act Click here
The appeal before the Joint Commissioner was dismissed as time‑barred, leaving the petitioner without recourse since the GST Appellate Tribunal was not functional at the time.
On behalf of the State, counsel argued that the earlier proceedings pertained to different issues and could not bar subsequent notices. The State emphasized that despite repeated service of notices, the petitioner failed to appear, justifying the ex‑parte order.
More importantly, the State pointed to the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 112 of the CGST Act, supported by a circular dated 11 July 2024 and a notification dated 17 September 2025 issued by the Ministry of Finance. These instruments clarified the procedure for pre‑deposit and stay of recovery pending appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal.
Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, after hearing both sides, held that the writ petition was not maintainable in light of the available statutory remedy. The Court noted that although the Tribunal was not yet functional, the Government had already issued notifications enabling taxpayers to file appeals with pre‑deposit and obtain statutory stay under Section 112(9).
The Court expressed confidence that the Tribunal would soon become operational with the appointment of its Vice President.
In disposing of the petition, the Court granted liberty to Shri Swastik Traders to file an appeal before the Tribunal within the stipulated period, subject to compliance with pre‑deposit requirements. It was clarified that recovery of the balance demand would remain stayed once the appeal was filed, but if the petitioner failed to file within limitation or deposit the required amount, the State would be free to proceed with recovery.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
