Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Prabir Kumar Rout, had challenged an order dated 23.07.2022 passed by the Additional CT & GST Officer, Balasore Circle, under Section 74 of the CGST/OGST Act, 2017 for tax periods July 2017 to March 2018, which was affirmed in appeal on 30.11.2023. With the second-appeal remedy under Section 112 to the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) unavailable because the Tribunal had not been constituted and made functional, the petitioner approached the Orissa High Court by writ petition. By the time the matter was heard, the Central Government had issued Notification S.O. No.4220(E) dated 17.09.2025 opening a staggered filing window for appeals before the now-functional GSTAT, along with a detailed e-filing user advisory.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the writ petition should continue to be entertained now that the GST Appellate Tribunal has become functional and a structured filing window has been notified.
  2. What conditions and timeline should govern the petitioner's transition to the statutory appellate forum.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner's counsel did not dispute the Tribunal's constitution but sought the Court's guidance/protection given the earlier non-availability of the forum.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Standing Counsel for the Department corroborated that the GSTAT had not been functional earlier, but submitted this did not absolve the petitioner from complying with the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 112(8) — full payment of admitted tax/interest/fine/penalty plus 10% of the disputed balance (capped at Rs.20 crore) — as a precondition for filing the appeal.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court extracted Section 112(8)'s pre-deposit requirement and the CBIC's notification dated 17.09.2025 (notifying 30.06.2026 as the outer date for filing appeals depending on when the order under challenge was communicated) along with the detailed GSTAT e-Filing Portal user advisory setting out a staggered filing schedule keyed to the date of the first appeal (APL-01/APL-03) or revision notice (RVN-01).
  • The Court held that once a statutory forum has been provided and made functional, and the filing period has been extended to accommodate the earlier non-constitution, it would not be proper for the writ court to keep such petitions pending, since the dispute can be adjudicated by that forum.
  • The writ petition was disposed of directing the petitioner to deposit the amount required under Section 112(8) (if not already paid) and file the appeal per the notified timeline; if filed in order, the appeal shall be entertained by the GSTAT.
  • The Court clarified it expressed no opinion on the merits of the First Appellate Order.

Important Clarification

  • With the GST Appellate Tribunal now functional and CBIC's staggered filing-window notification dated 17.09.2025 in place, writ courts are relegating pending Section 112 challenges to the Tribunal rather than adjudicating them, since the earlier bar of non-constitution no longer applies.
  • The mandatory pre-deposit under Section 112(8) remains a precondition for filing before the GSTAT even where the delay in filing was solely attributable to the Tribunal's non-constitution.

Sections Involved

  • Section 112, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – second appeal to the GST Appellate Tribunal, including the mandatory pre-deposit under sub-section (8).
  • Section 74, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – the provision under which the original demand was raised.

Decision – In Favour of

The matter was disposed of with directions, without a finding on merits — the petitioner was relegated to the GST Appellate Tribunal under the notified timeline, with the correctness of the underlying demand left entirely open.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Orissa at Cuttack
Case No.: W.P.(C) No.27331 of 2025
Coram: Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman
Date of Order: 23.03.2026

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.