Orissa HC Directs GSTAT Route: Writ Against GST Appeal Order Disposed With Mandatory Deposit Condition u/s. 112(8)
The Tribunal held that with the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal now functional and timelines notified, the petitioner must pursue the statutory appeal route with mandatory pre-deposit
The Cuttack Bench of Orissa High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an appellate order passed under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) enactments, directing that the proper statutory remedy now lies before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), subject to fulfilment of the mandatory deposit condition prescribed under Section 112(8) of the Central Goods...
The Cuttack Bench of Orissa High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an appellate order passed under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) enactments, directing that the proper statutory remedy now lies before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), subject to fulfilment of the mandatory deposit condition prescribed under Section 112(8) of the Central Goods andServices Tax Act, 2017.
The writ petition was filed by Mahendra Suniani, who challenged the adjudication order passed by the State Tax Officer-cum-Proper Officer, Sundargarh Circle for the tax period April 2019 to March 2020 under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST) and the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
All-in-One Manual with Updated GST Laws & Provisions, Click here
The dispute arose from proceedings initiated alleging wrongful tax liability and demand. The first appellate authority affirmed the adjudicating authority’s order, leading the petitioner to approach the High Court contending that the statutory appellate forum before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal was unavailable at that time.
Counsel Sriman Arpit Mohanty submitted that although an appeal remedy exists under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017, the GSTAT was not constituted and functional when the appeal became due. The petitioner contended that in absence of an operational appellate forum, a party cannot be left “remediless” and must be permitted to invoke writ jurisdiction instead of being compelled to comply with the pre-deposit condition prescribed under Section 112(8).
Counsel Sunil Mishra and Seshadeb Das submitted that the Government has since notified staggered appeal timelines and operationalised the GSTAT and its electronic filing system. The respondents relied on the notification issued by the Department of Revenue dated 17.09.2025 and the “User Advisor for the GSTAT E-Filing Portal,” which prescribed time windows and conditions for filing appeals including payment of admitted dues and 10% of the disputed tax under Section 112(8).
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman held that although writ jurisdiction can be exercised in situations where statutory appellate forums are unavailable, the position has changed as the GSTAT has become functional and staggered timelines have been prescribed up to 30.06.2026.
The Court reasoned that once the forum is operational and the statute mandates compliance with pre-deposit requirements for filing appeals under Section 112(8) of the CGST Act, 2017, writ jurisdiction should not become a route to circumvent statutory conditions.
Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of directing the petitioner to deposit the statutory amounts, if not already paid, and file the appeal before the GSTAT within the timelines prescribed under the electronic filing advisory. The Court clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the appellate order since the dispute must now be adjudicated by the appellate forum.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
