Writ Jurisdiction Not Substitute for Functional GSTAT: Orissa HC Directs Petitioner to Comply with S.112(8) Pre‑Deposit [Read Order]

In a recent case, the Orissa High Court has ruled that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a substitute for the statutory appellate remedy once the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has been made functional. The Court directed the petitioner to comply with Section 112(8) of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act.

The petitioner, Abhijit Nayak, challenged an order dated 8 February 2022 passed by the CT & GST Officer, under Section 74 of the GST Act, for the tax periods July 2017 to March 2018. This order was affirmed by the Appellate Authority on 25 September 2025.

Normally, the next remedy would lie under Section 112 of the GST Act before the GSTAT. However, the petitioner argued that since the GSTAT had not been constituted or made functional, he was left remediless and had no option but to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.

The Department of Revenue subsequently issued Notification S.O. 4220(E) dated 17 September 2025, operationalising the GSTAT and providing staggered timelines for filing appeals up to 30 June 2026. A “User Advisory” was also released to guide appellants through the e‑filing process. Against this backdrop, the High Court had to decide whether the writ petition should continue or whether the petitioner must now pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the absence of a functional GSTAT at the time of filing left him without an effective remedy, justifying the invocation of writ jurisdiction. He argued that a litigant cannot be rendered remediless due to administrative delay in constituting the tribunal.

The Standing Counsel for the CT & GST Department acknowledged the earlier non‑functionality of GSTAT but highlighted that the tribunal was now operational. He argued that writ jurisdiction should not be used to bypass statutory requirements, particularly the mandatory pre‑deposit under Section 112(8). He stressed that the petitioner must deposit the admitted tax and 10% of the disputed tax before filing an appeal, subject to the statutory cap of ₹20 crore.

The Division Bench, led by Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman, noted that writ jurisdiction can indeed be invoked when a statutory appellate forum is absent. However, once the forum is constituted and functional, writ petitions should not be entertained. The Court noted that the statutory scheme under the GST Act provides a clear appellate hierarchy, and writ jurisdiction cannot be used to circumvent mandatory conditions such as pre‑deposit.

The Court examined the government notification and the staggered filing schedule, which allowed appellants sufficient time to file appeals before GSTAT up to 30 June 2026. It was observed that the petitioner’s grievance could now be adjudicated by the tribunal, and therefore, the writ petition should not remain pending.

The High Court disposed of the writ petition with specific directions that the petitioner must deposit the amount required under Section 112(8) of the GST Act, if not already deposited. Also the petitioner shall file an appeal before GSTAT within the timelines specified in the User Advisory for the e‑filing portal. And if the appeal is filed in compliance with statutory requirements, GSTAT shall entertain it.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates