Case Title: Rockfield Mining and Minerals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Court: Calcutta High Court
Petition No.: WPA 23544 of 2024
Category: Recovery Proceedings / Stay of Demand pending Appellate Tribunal
Date of Judgment: 13 February 2025
Relevant Sections: Sections 107(6) and 112(8)–(9) of the CGST Act, 2017; Circular No. 224/18/2024-GST dated 11 July 2024
Facts (Paras 1–3):
The petitioner, Rockfield Mining and Minerals Pvt. Ltd., challenged an appellate order dated 19 March 2024 passed by the State GST Appellate Authority. The company sought protection against coercive recovery, emphasizing that the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the CGST Act was yet to become functional. The petitioner relied upon CBIC Circular No. 224/18/2024-GST dated 11 July 2024, which clarified that recovery of confirmed demand must remain stayed where taxpayers have complied with pre-deposit obligations and submitted an undertaking to file an appeal once the Tribunal is operational.
Questions before the Court:
Whether the State authorities could proceed with recovery of the confirmed demand when the taxpayer had already exhausted the first appeal and the GST Appellate Tribunal was yet to be constituted, particularly in light of Section 112(9) and CBIC Circular 224/18/2024-GST.
Observations (Paras 3–6):
Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj observed that the CBIC circular provided a clear administrative framework under which recovery of the balance demand stands stayed, provided the taxpayer makes the requisite pre-deposit and files an undertaking to approach the Tribunal once operational. The Court noted that, as the Tribunal had not yet been constituted, it would be unjust to enforce recovery at this stage. The learned Judge found that the petitioner had established a prima facie case warranting interim protection.
Judgment (Paras 6–9):
The Court granted unconditional stay on recovery of the demand arising from the appellate order dated 19 March 2024 for two weeks. Further, if the petitioner deposited 10% of the balance disputed tax, in addition to the amount already paid under Section 107(6), within two weeks, the stay would continue until disposal of the writ petition or further orders. The State was directed to file its affidavit-in-opposition within six weeks.
Summary of Cases/Authorities Referred:
| Reference | Principle / Verdict |
|---|---|
| CBIC Circular No. 224/18/2024-GST (11 July 2024) | Clarifies that recovery of confirmed demand shall remain stayed if the taxpayer pays the pre-deposit and submits an undertaking to appeal once the Tribunal is constituted. |
| Section 112(8)–(9), CGST Act, 2017 | Provides that upon payment of pre-deposit and filing of appeal before the Tribunal, recovery of the remaining amount stands stayed. |
Between Fine Lines:
This order reinforces that tax recovery cannot proceed when the GST Appellate Tribunal is non-functional. Taxpayers, however, must pay the pre-deposit and furnish an undertaking to appeal when the Tribunal becomes operational. It provides procedural protection against premature recovery and ensures that administrative delays in constituting the Tribunal do not prejudice taxpayers.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
