The Supreme Court has dismissed a batch of Special Leave Petitions arising from a Gujarat High Court order but protected the taxpayers’ right to pursue their statutory appeals before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT).
The bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi clarified that the petitioners would be entitled to raise all available grounds before the GSTAT, including the grounds urged in the Special Leave Petitions. It further directed the Tribunal to sympathetically consider any request for condonation or exclusion of delay, noting that the petitioners had been pursuing their legal remedy before the wrong forum.
Buy Now: 150 + Judgments On GST – E-Compilation For August 2026
After hearing senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, however, the bench found no ground to entertain the Special Leave Petitions and dismissed them.
The dismissal was accompanied by an important clarification intended to preserve the petitioners’ statutory appellate remedy. The Supreme Court reiterated the liberty granted by the Gujarat High Court to raise all grounds before the GSTAT.
The Court recorded: “The GSTAT shall consider it sympathetically, having regard to the fact that petitioner(s) were prosecuting their rightful cause before a wrong forum.”
The Supreme Court made it clear that the dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions would not prevent the petitioners from placing their objections to the disputed GST proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal.
The petitioners were expressly permitted to raise before the GSTAT all grounds available to them, including those which had formed the basis of their challenge before the Supreme Court.
Consequently, the Court did not adjudicate the substantive GST dispute on merits. The legality of the departmental action, as well as the factual and legal objections raised by the taxpayers, may now be examined by the statutory appellate forum.
Recognising that time had been spent pursuing writ and special leave proceedings, the Supreme Court also granted the petitioners liberty to file an application under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Section 5 permits the competent forum to condone a delay where sufficient cause is established. Section 14 provides for the exclusion of time spent prosecuting another civil proceeding in good faith before a forum that was unable to entertain the matter due to lack of jurisdiction or another cause of a similar nature.
The direction assumes significance because an appeal filed before the GSTAT at this stage could otherwise face an objection on limitation. The Supreme Court’s order enables the petitioners to explain that the delay occurred while they were bona fide pursuing their grievance before the Gujarat High Court and thereafter before the apex court.
Although the Court asked the GSTAT to consider such an application sympathetically, it did not automatically condone the delay in filing the statutory appeals. The petitioners will still have to submit the necessary applications, and the Tribunal will decide them in accordance with law after considering the circumstances recorded by the Supreme Court.
The proceedings originated from a Special Civil Application filed before the Gujarat High Court challenging action taken by the Additional Commissioner (Anti-Evasion) and other authorities.
When the matter came up before a division bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi on February 13, 2026, counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition in order to file an appeal before the appropriate forum.
The High Court accepted the request and disposed of the writ petition as withdrawn, with liberty to pursue the appellate remedy. The High Court did not examine or rule upon the merits of the petitioner’s challenge.
The petitioner subsequently approached the Supreme Court against the High Court’s order. The apex court declined to interfere but reinforced the liberty to approach the GSTAT and safeguarded the petitioner’s opportunity to seek relief concerning limitation.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
