Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/s. Anjali Sahu, challenged an order dated 25 April 2023 passed under Section 73 of the CGST/Odisha GST Act, 2017 for tax periods April 2018 to March 2019, affirmed in appeal on 28 January 2025. As with a series of similar petitions before this Bench, the writ was filed because the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) under Section 112 had not, at the relevant time, been constituted and made functional.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the writ petition should continue to be entertained on merits once the GST Appellate Tribunal has since become functional, with a notified window for filing appeals.
  2. Whether the petitioner remained bound by the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 112(8) despite the earlier non-availability of the GSTAT forum.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner's advocate argued that since the GSTAT was not constituted and functional when the cause of action arose, the writ petition was the only available remedy at the relevant time.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Additional Standing Counsel for CT&GST confirmed GSTAT's earlier non-functionality but maintained that the petitioner must still comply with the Section 112(8) pre-deposit condition once GSTAT became operational.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court took note of the Department of Revenue's notification dated 17 September 2025 (S.O. No.4220(E)) and the staggered GSTAT e-filing timelines fixing 30 June 2026 as the outer date for filing appeals, along with the subsequent procedural orders of the President, GSTAT.
  • Applying the same reasoning as in its parallel rulings on this issue, the Court held that with GSTAT now functional and an extended filing window available, it would not keep the writ petition pending, and disposed of it with a direction to the petitioner to deposit the amount required under Section 112(8) and pursue the appeal before GSTAT within the notified timeline.
  • The Court clarified it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the first appellate order.

Important Clarification

  • This decision confirms, in a separate case before the same Orissa High Court Bench, that pending writ petitions filed solely because GSTAT was not yet constituted are now being disposed of uniformly with directions to avail the GSTAT remedy under the staggered notification schedule, once the mandatory Section 112(8) pre-deposit is made.
  • The consistent application of this template across multiple, differently-numbered petitions before the same Bench indicates a settled administrative approach for the transition period as GSTAT is operationalised nationwide.

Sections Involved

  • Section 73 of the CGST/Odisha GST Act, 2017 - governs determination of tax not paid for reasons other than fraud.
  • Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017 - provides for appeal to the GST Appellate Tribunal, including the Section 112(8) pre-deposit condition.

Decision – In Favour of

The writ petition was disposed of with directions rather than decided on merits, leaving the original demand and first appellate order undisturbed pending the petitioner's pursuit of the now-available GSTAT remedy — an outcome that, absent a further ruling by GSTAT, currently favours the Department.

Case Details

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, W.P.(C) No.18415 of 2025; Coram: Hon'ble The Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Murahari Sri Raman; decided on 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.