The Supreme Court has dismissed a special leave petition challenging an Allahabad High Court order that declined to entertain a taxpayer’s GST writ petition because a statutory second appeal was available before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT).
The Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan condoned the delay in approaching the Court but found no good ground to interfere with the High Court’s decision under Article 136 of the Constitution and dismissed the writ petition solely on the ground of an alternative remedy, expressly leaving the underlying tax dispute open for determination by the Tribunal on merits.
Buy Now: 160+ GST E-Magazine September 2026
The proceedings arose from an order dated October 31, 2025, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, CGST and Central Excise, Lucknow, affirming the adjudicating authority’s decision.
The taxpayer challenged that appellate order before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. Justice Jaspreet Singh decided the writ petition on February 24, 2026.
The High Court’s order does not describe the underlying tax demand, the amount involved or the substantive grounds of challenge. Its consideration centred on whether the writ petition should be entertained when an appeal before the Tribunal was available.
The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the taxpayer had an adequate statutory remedy through a second appeal before the Tribunal.
They submitted that writ petitions had previously been entertained because the Tribunal was not functioning. However, the Tribunal had since been properly constituted, enabling taxpayers to pursue the statutory appellate mechanism.
The respondents also relied on a notification dated September 17, 2025, issued under Section 112(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, addressing the time available for filing Tribunal appeals.
According to the High Court’s order, the taxpayer’s counsel attempted to advance submissions but could not dispute either the constitution of the Tribunal or the availability of time to appeal under the notification at that stage.
The notification reproduced in the High Court’s order specified June 30, 2026, as the date up to which appeals could be filed before the Appellate Tribunal where the challenged order had been communicated before April 1, 2026.
For orders communicated on or after April 1, 2026, the reproduced notification provided for appeals within three months from the date of communication.
These timelines supported the High Court’s conclusion in February 2026 that the taxpayer could pursue the statutory remedy.
The Supreme Court’s subsequent order does not grant a fresh deadline, extend the June 30, 2026 date or separately decide the question of limitation for a Tribunal appeal.
Accepting the alternative-remedy objection, the High Court declined to entertain the writ petition and left it open to the taxpayer to file a second appeal before the Tribunal.
It directed that, if an appeal was filed, the Tribunal should decide it on its own merits. The Court expressly clarified that it had not examined the merits of the controversy and that the writ petition was being declined only because an alternative remedy was available.
The High Court’s decision therefore concerned the appropriate forum for pursuing the challenge. It did not determine the correctness of the tax demand or the substantive findings of the departmental authorities.
The taxpayer subsequently challenged the High Court’s order before the Supreme Court.
After condoning the delay, the Supreme Court declined to interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 and dismissed the special leave petition. Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.
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.
