TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether a writ petition challenging an appealable order of the Appellate Authority is maintainable where the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal has not been constituted or is not functional.
2. Whether, in the absence of a constituted Appellate Tribunal, a taxpayer can secure stay of recovery of the balance demand by (a) making payment of an amount equal to the statutory pre-deposit under Section 112(8) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act) through the Electronic Liability Ledger (ELL) and (b) filing an undertaking/declaration to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal when it is constituted, in terms of Circular No. 224/18/2024-GST dated 11.07.2024 and related provisions.
3. Whether the Circular No. 224/18/2024-GST dated 11.07.2024 (and the procedure it prescribes) can be acted upon by a taxpayer to obtain the stay contemplated by Section 112(9) of the CGST Act pending constitution of the Tribunal.
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Maintainability of writ petition where Appellate Tribunal is not constituted
Legal framework: The CGST statutory scheme contemplates an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against orders of the Appellate Authority. The availability of statutory appellate remedy is a factor in deciding maintainability of extraordinary writs.
Precedent Treatment: No specific precedents were cited or relied upon in the judgment; the Court treated the non-constitution of the Tribunal as a factual impediment to pursuing the statutory appeal.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court recognized that the impugned order is appealable but observed that the Appellate Tribunal has not been constituted and is non-functional; consequently, the statutory remedy cannot presently be availed. This factual reality justified the filing of the writ petition to seek interim relief and directions enabling the taxpayer to preserve appellate rights.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where a statutory appellate forum is not in existence, a writ petition is an appropriate vehicle to obtain directions that preserve the availability of statutory remedies when the forum comes into existence. Obiter - none beyond the immediate factual assessment.
Conclusions: The Court accepted that, given the Tribunal's non-constitution, the writ petition was maintainable to secure the relief sought (i.e., liberty to follow the procedure in the impugned Circular and thereby preserve rights to appeal).
Issue 2 - Efficacy of Circular No. 224/18/2024-GST for obtaining stay by payment via ELL and undertaking to file appeal
Legal framework: Section 112(8) CGST Act requires a pre-deposit for prosecution of appeals; Section 112(9) contemplates stay of recovery of the remaining confirmed demand subject to compliance with statutory conditions. The Central Goods and Services Tax (Ninth Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019 sets timelines and procedural clarifications related to appeals.
Precedent Treatment: The Court did not refer to any contrary authorities that invalidate administrative circulars or that preclude reliance on a procedural circular for interim relief when statutory appellate forum is absent.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Circular clarifies a practical mechanism whereby a taxpayer can make payment equal to the pre-deposit by using the Electronic Liability Ledger (ELL) Part-II and map that payment to the relevant order, and can file an undertaking/declaration with the proper jurisdictional officer to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal when constituted. The Circular further states that upon payment of the amount equal to the pre-deposit and filing of the undertaking, recovery of the remaining confirmed demand shall stand stayed as per Section 112(9). The Court construed the Circular as providing a permissible and effective route to secure the statutory stay envisaged by Section 112(9), subject to compliance with the Circular's procedural requirements and the timelines in Section 112 read with the Ninth Removal of Difficulties Order, 2019.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - administrative circular prescribing a procedural method (ELL payment mapped to order plus undertaking) to effectuate the statutory pre-deposit and consequent stay under Section 112(9) can be acted upon by a taxpayer in the absence of a constituted Appellate Tribunal, and courts may permit steps in accordance with that Circular to preserve appellate rights. Obiter - the Circular's operational details and mapping within ELL are administrative directions and their detailed implementation is to be effected by the revenue machinery.
Conclusions: The Court granted liberty to the taxpayer to follow paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Circular by (a) making payment equal to the pre-deposit through the ELL procedure and (b) filing the requisite undertaking/declaration with the jurisdictional officer, within a specified short period. Compliance with these steps will attract the stay of recovery of the remaining demand in terms of Section 112(9).
Issue 3 - Scope of judicial intervention and directions given
Legal framework: Courts may issue directions in writ jurisdiction to protect statutory rights and to prevent prejudice arising from inability to access statutory remedies due to administrative or factual constraints.
Precedent Treatment: No precedents were discussed; the Court exercised discretion consistent with established principles permitting interim directions to preserve appellate remedies.
Interpretation and reasoning: In light of the absence of objection from the revenue and the existence of a clear administrative protocol (Circular), the Court exercised its discretion to dispose of the writ petition by granting specific liberty to the petitioner to take prescribed steps (pre-deposit via ELL and filing undertaking) within two weeks so as to preserve the right to appeal when the Tribunal is constituted.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where an administrative circular authorizes a procedural route to secure a statutory safeguard and the revenue does not oppose, courts may grant liberty to comply with that procedure to preserve appellate rights; such directions are appropriate to avoid prejudice caused by non-constitution of the appellate forum. Obiter - the Court did not set wider precedent on use of writ jurisdiction in all GST appeal contexts beyond the facts at hand.
Conclusions: The Court disposed of the writ by permitting the petitioner to comply with the Circular's mechanism for pre-deposit and undertaking within two weeks, thereby preserving the right to appeal and the stay of recovery under Section 112(9). The respondents raised no objection to this course, and the Court's direction is limited to liberty to file the appeal in terms of the Circular and related statutory timelines (Section 112 read with the Ninth Removal of Difficulties Order, 2019).
TaxTMI 
