GST recovery stay mechanism allows conditional protection through undertaking and pre-deposit pending appellate tribunal operation.

Where the GST regime provides a specific mechanism for filing an undertaking, making the prescribed pre-deposit, and obtaining stay of recovery pending operationalisation of the appellate tribunal, a writ petition seeking similar protection may be disposed of by directing the taxpayer to comply with that mechanism rather than deciding the underlying tax dispute. The Court accepted that the circular and statutory appeal-linked recovery procedure remained available, and granted liberty to the petitioner to invoke it before the jurisdictional officer within the stipulated time, with conditional protection against recovery of the balance demand until compliance failed or the protection ceased.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition, arising from rejection of the petitioner's application and in the backdrop of the pending constitution of the Appellate Tribunal, should be disposed of by permitting the petitioner to avail the mechanism contemplated in the GST circular and statutory provisions governing appeal, pre-deposit and stay of recovery.

Analysis: The petition concerned an order under the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and a subsequent rejection of the petitioner's application. The material placed before the Court showed that the GST framework, including the relevant circular governing recovery of outstanding dues where the first appeal has been disposed of and the Tribunal is not yet operational, provided a specific course for a taxpayer to file an undertaking, make the prescribed pre-deposit, and secure stay of recovery of the balance demand. The Court accepted the submission that these guidelines afforded an available statutory and administrative route, and considered that nothing further survived for adjudication in the writ proceeding. The Court therefore reserved liberty to the petitioner to comply with the prescribed conditions, including filing the undertaking/declaration before the jurisdictional officer and making the pre-deposit within the stipulated period, failing which the protective benefit would cease.

Conclusion: The petitioner was permitted to avail the prescribed GST recovery mechanism, and the writ petition was disposed of with liberty and conditional protection against recovery upon compliance.

Final Conclusion: The dispute was not decided on merits of the underlying tax liability, but the petitioner obtained conditional relief enabling recourse to the statutory appeal-linked recovery protection.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the GST regime provides a specific mechanism for undertaking, pre-deposit and stay of recovery pending operationalisation of the appellate tribunal, a writ petition seeking similar relief may be disposed of by directing compliance with that mechanism rather than adjudicating the underlying dispute.

---