Writ Jurisdiction Can’t Be Used To Bypass Mandatory Pre-Deposit Once GSTAT Is Functional: Orissa HC

The Orissa High Court has held that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to bypass mandatory pre-deposit once the Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) is functional. The bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice M.S. Raman has observed that while taxpayers cannot be left remediless due to the earlier non-constitution of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), they are required to strictly comply with statutory pre-deposit conditions once the Tribunal has been made operational. The case arose from a challenge to an order dated 20 January 2022 passed by the State Tax Officer, CT & GST, Bhubaneswar-III Circle, under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Odisha GST Act, 2017. The order related to tax periods from April 2019 to March 2020 and was subsequently affirmed by the Appellate Authority on 5 September 2023. Aggrieved by the appellate order, the assessee approached the High Court by way of a writ petition, contending that although Section 112 of the GST Act provides for a second appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal, such remedy was illusory since the Tribunal had not been constituted or made functional at the relevant time. The petitioner argued that in the absence of a functional GSTAT, the writ court was the only effective forum available and denial of writ relief would leave the assessee without any remedy. The department conceded that the GST Appellate Tribunal had not been functional earlier, but strongly contended that this did not dispense with the mandatory requirement of pre-deposit prescribed under Section 112(8) of the GST Act. It was submitted that even when approaching the writ court, an assessee cannot be permitted to circumvent statutory conditions attached to the appellate remedy. The court reiterated the settled principle that a writ petition is maintainable where the statutory appellate forum is unavailable or non-functional, as an aggrieved person cannot be rendered remediless. However, the Court emphasised that this does not allow a litigant to “steal a march” over statutory provisions governing appeals. The Bench noted that Section 112(8) of the GST Act mandates payment of the admitted tax liability in full and a further pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed tax (subject to a cap of ₹20 crore) as a condition precedent for filing an appeal before the GSTAT. Significantly, the Court took judicial notice of the notification issued by the Department of Revenue on 17 September 2025, which notified 30 June 2026 as the outer date for filing appeals before the GSTAT in cases where orders were communicated prior to 1 April 2026. The Bench also referred to the “User Advisory for the GSTAT e-Filing Portal”, which prescribes staggered timelines for filing second appeals based on the date of filing of first appeals or issuance of revisional notices. In view of these developments, the Court observed that the statutory appellate forum had now been provided and made functional, along with sufficient time being granted to assessees to approach it. Holding that it would be inappropriate to keep such writ petitions pending once the appellate mechanism is operational, the High Court disposed of the petition with specific directions the petitioner was directed to deposit the amount required under Section 112(8) of the GST Act, if not already deposited, as a pre-condition for filing an appeal before the GSTAT. The appeal is to be filed strictly in accordance with the timelines mentioned in the GSTAT e-filing user advisory. Upon filing, if the appeal is found to be in order and compliant with statutory requirements, the GST Appellate Tribunal shall entertain it on merits. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the tax demand or the first appellate order. Case Details Case Title: M/s. Cordant Engineerings India Private Ltd. Versus The State Tax Officer, CT & GST Case No.: W.P.(C) No.91 of 2025 Date: 09.01.2026 Counsel For Petitioner: S.A. Mohanty, Advocate Counsel For Respondent: Sunil Mishra, Standing Counsel Click Here To Read Order Read More: Pro-Rata, Development, Erection Charges Linked to Power Transmission Not Liable to Service Tax: CESTAT

Writ Jurisdiction Can’t Be Used To Bypass Mandatory Pre-Deposit Once GSTAT Is Functional: Orissa HC

Membership Required

Latest articles

Woman’s Family Alleges Murder, Questions Fall Theory After Suspicious Injuries Found on Body

Twisha Sharma’s Death: BCI Suspends Licence of Adv Samarth Singh Amid Probe & Sent To 7 Days Police Custody

Petition in Supreme Court Seeks CBI Probe Against “Cockroach Janta Party” Over Alleged Fake Law Degrees and Misuse of Court Identity

Even “Loans” Can Be Treated as Deposits Under MPID Act; Failure of IPC Charges Doesn’t Bar Action Under Depositor Protection Law: Supreme court

More like this

Woman’s Family Alleges Murder, Questions Fall Theory After Suspicious Injuries Found on Body

Twisha Sharma’s Death: BCI Suspends Licence of Adv Samarth Singh Amid Probe & Sent To 7 Days Police Custody

Petition in Supreme Court Seeks CBI Probe Against “Cockroach Janta Party” Over Alleged Fake Law Degrees and Misuse of Court Identity

About us

Company

Categories