🧑⚖️ Writ Petition Dismissed: Chhattisgarh High Court Rules Statutory Appeal Must Be Exhausted First
By Aaerm Law Associates | May 22, 2025
📝 SEO Title:
Chhattisgarh HC Rules Writ Petition Not Maintainable Without Exhausting CGST Appeal Remedy – Mayasheel Case
🔍 Focus Keyphrase:
Writ Petition CGST Appeal Remedy Chhattisgarh High Court
🌐 Slug/URL:
/writ-petition-cgst-appeal-chhattisgarh-high-court
📢 Meta Description:
In a key 2025 ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 226, stating that statutory remedies under CGST must be exhausted first. Full legal analysis by Aaerm Law Associates.
🔍 Introduction: A Key Legal Precedent in GST Litigation
In a major ruling on April 4, 2025, the Chhattisgarh High Court clarified a crucial aspect of GST litigation. The court held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable if the petitioner fails to exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017.
This judgment came in the case of Mayasheel Retail India Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh [Writ Petition No. 84 of 2024], and has set a precedent for how courts will handle such writ petitions moving forward.
📄 Background of the Case: What Happened?
Mayasheel Retail India Ltd., the petitioner, received a demand order on January 11, 2021, via Form GST DRC-07. However, the petitioner claimed that it only came to know about the order after a recovery notice was issued on February 27, 2024.
The petitioner argued that:
- The Show Cause Notice (SCN) under Section 73 of the CGST Act was never properly issued.
- A hearing opportunity was never granted.
- The SCN summary was emailed, which they contended is not a legally accepted mode of service.
Notably, in reopened proceedings under Form GST ASMT-10 and DRC-01 issued in January 2024, the department eventually dropped the demands after receiving representations from the petitioner. However, the original order remained in force, prompting the current writ petition.
⚖️ Core Legal Question: Can You Skip the Statutory Appeal?
The key legal issue was:
Is a writ petition maintainable when the petitioner has not used the statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act?
📚 What the Court Held: Appeals Must Come First
The High Court delivered a firm “no” to bypassing statutory remedies.
Key Observations:
- Section 107(1) of the CGST Act clearly allows appeals against orders passed by adjudicating authorities.
- The demand order in this case was appealable, and the petitioner should have approached the Appellate Authority first.
The Court clarified that although Article 226 does not impose an absolute bar on writ petitions, it should only be exercised in exceptional cases, such as:
- Violation of natural justice,
- Lack of jurisdiction, or
- Fundamental rights violations.
None of these exceptions applied to the present case.
⚖️ Key Supreme Court Judgments Cited
The High Court supported its stance with references to landmark decisions:
1. M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer (2023) 3 SCR 871
- Differentiated between “maintainability” and “entertainability” of writ petitions.
- The High Court has discretion in entertaining writs, even if technically maintainable.
2. CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal (2014) 1 SCC 603
- Reinforced the self-imposed restraint on courts.
- Courts should not entertain writs when effective alternative remedies exist.
3. Assistant Commissioner v. Commercial Steel Ltd. (2021) 7 SCR 660
- Confirmed that no exception existed in that case to skip the appeal process.
- High Court should not have intervened.
📌 Final Judgment and Key Takeaways
The court found no violation of natural justice, no procedural lapse serious enough to bypass the statutory route, and no reason to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction. It therefore dismissed the writ petition.
However, it granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 107, and directed the appellate authority to consider the delay, as the petitioner had already pursued the matter through the High Court.
⚖️ What This Means for Businesses and Taxpayers
This decision sends a clear message to taxpayers under the GST regime:
- Don’t skip the appeal process unless your case falls into an exceptional category.
- Maintain timelines, and approach the Appellate Authority before invoking constitutional remedies.
- If you must file a writ, ensure there’s a compelling legal or constitutional violation.
✅ Best Practices for Taxpayers
- Respond Promptly: Always track communications from the GST portal and respond within timelines.
- File Appeals: If aggrieved, file an appeal under Section 107 within 3 months.
- Document Everything: Keep evidence of service issues, non-receipt of notices, and representations made.
- Consult Legal Counsel: Before invoking Article 226, consult legal experts to evaluate whether the facts justify writ jurisdiction.
📘 Conclusion: Respect for Statutory Framework is Paramount
The ruling in Mayasheel Retail India Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh reinforces judicial discipline in the interpretation of tax laws. It discourages misuse of writ jurisdiction and encourages litigants to follow the established statutory procedures. This ensures smoother case resolution and respects the hierarchy of remedies provided in the CGST Act.
