Writ Petition Not Maintainable After GSTAT Becomes Functional; Assessees Must Avail Remedy U/S 112 GST Act: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has dismissed two writ petitions filed under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, holding that the availability and operationalisation of the statutory appellate remedy before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) bars the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In Amit Kumar Das v. Joint Commissioner of State Tax, the petitioner had challenged an assessment order passed under Section 73 of the CGST/OGST Acts for the period April 2020 to March 2021, which was affirmed by the first appellate authority. The principal contention was that although a second appeal lay under Section 112 of the GST Act, the GSTAT had not been constituted earlier, rendering the petitioner without remedy. The State did not dispute the earlier non-functionality of the Tribunal but pointed out that statutory pre-deposit requirements under Section 112(8) of the GST Act could not be bypassed. Taking note of the Central Government notification dated 17 September 2025 and the issuance of a detailed user advisory for GSTAT e-filing, the Court observed that the Tribunal had now been made functional and extended timelines had been prescribed for filing second appeals in a staggered manner up to 30 June 2026. In this backdrop, the Bench held that it would be inappropriate for the writ court to keep such matters pending when an effective alternative remedy was available. A similar view was taken in Mahendra Suniani v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & GST, where the petitioner had assailed an order passed under Section 74 of the GST Act for the period April 2019 to March 2020, confirmed in appeal on 30 June 2025. The petitioner raised an identical plea of non-availability of the appellate tribunal. The Court rejected the plea in light of the Tribunal becoming operational and the notified timelines for filing appeals. In both cases, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman reiterated that while writ jurisdiction may be invoked where the appellate forum is non-functional, once the statutory forum is operational, litigants must exhaust the remedy provided under the Act. The Court also directed both the petitioners to comply with the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 112(8) and file appeals before the GSTAT within the prescribed timelines, clarifying that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the disputes. Case Title: Amit Kumar Das v. Joint Commissioner of State Tax, CT & GST Circle, Jajpur & Another Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 23907 of 2025 For Petitioner: Mr. Bijay Panda, Advocate For Respondent: Mr. S. Tibriwal, Additional Standing Counsel for CT & GST Department Case Title: Mahendra Suniani v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Goods and Services Tax, Odisha & Others Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 35823 of 2025 For Petitioner: Mr. Sriman Arpit Mohanty, Advocate For Respondent: Mr. Sunil Mishra, Standing Counsel a/w Mr. Seshadeb Das, Additional Standing Counsel for CT & GST Department Click Here To Read/Download Order - Amit Kumar Das v. Joint Commissioner of State Tax, CT & GST Circle, Jajpur & AnotherClick Here To Read/Download Order - Mahendra Suniani v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Goods and Services Tax, Odisha & Others

Writ Petition Not Maintainable After GSTAT Becomes Functional; Assessees Must Avail Remedy U/S 112 GST Act: Orissa High Court

Manu Sharma

Tags