Case image

Facts of the Case

Anjan Kumar Nayak challenged before the Orissa High Court an order dated 29.01.2022 passed by the CT & GST Officer, Bhadrak Circle, under Section 74 of the CGST/Odisha GST Act, 2017 for tax periods July 2017 to March 2018, which was affirmed in appeal on 19.12.2022. Since the statutory second appeal lay to the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) under Section 112, and the GSTAT had not been constituted or made functional, the petitioner could not avail that remedy and approached the High Court directly.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a writ petition is maintainable where the statutory forum of appeal (GSTAT) has not been constituted, rendering the appellate remedy under Section 112 practically unavailable.
  2. Whether such a petitioner must nonetheless comply with the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 112(8) as a condition for eventual appeal once the Tribunal becomes functional.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner submitted that although Section 112 of the GST Act provides an appellate remedy against the first appellate order, this could not be availed since the GSTAT was not constituted and made functional at the relevant time, justifying invocation of writ jurisdiction.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Standing Counsel for the CT & GST Department corroborated the non-constitution and non-functionality of the GSTAT, but argued this did not absolve the petitioner from complying with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 112(8) before the appeal could be entertained once the Tribunal becomes operational.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court noted the notification dated 17.09.2025 fixing 30 June 2026 as the outer date for filing appeals before the GSTAT, and the staggered filing schedule issued via the GSTAT e-Filing Portal user advisory.
  • Applying the principle that a writ court will step in only where the statutory forum is non-functional, but must ensure strict compliance with statutory conditions attached to that forum, the Court held that it would not be proper to keep the writ petition pending once the GSTAT forum has become functional and the filing window has been extended.
  • The writ petition was disposed of directing the petitioner to deposit the Section 112(8) pre-deposit if not already made, and to file the appeal before the GSTAT within the notified timeline, with the Court expressing no opinion on the merits of the first appellate order.

Important Clarification

  • Where the GST Appellate Tribunal was not functional, writ courts entertained such petitions on grounds of the assessee otherwise being rendered remediless, but on the Tribunal becoming operational and a filing window being notified, courts now redirect assessees to file the statutory appeal, subject to compliance with the Section 112(8) pre-deposit.
  • Non-constitution of a statutory tribunal is not a permanent bypass of the appellate route; once the forum becomes functional with a defined filing window, the writ court's earlier indulgence gives way to the ordinary statutory remedy.

Sections Involved

  • Section 74, CGST/Odisha GST Act, 2017 – governs determination of tax not paid by reason of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression.
  • Section 112, CGST Act, 2017 – provides for appeal to the GST Appellate Tribunal and prescribes the pre-deposit under sub-section (8).

Decision – In Favour of

The decision is disposed of with directions and is procedural in nature — neither a merits win for the assessee nor the Department — directing the petitioner to pursue the now-available GSTAT appellate remedy, subject to the statutory pre-deposit, without any opinion expressed on the first appellate order.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Orissa at Cuttack
Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 11002/2025
CNR / Citation: Not available in judgment text
Coram: Hon'ble the Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Murahari Sri Raman
Date of Order: 23 March 2026

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.