Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/s Total Solutions (A-Z) Services, Cuttack, challenged an order dated 27.08.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax under Section 73 of the CGST/OGST Act, 2017 for tax periods April 2021 to March 2022, which was affirmed in appeal on 25.03.2025. The petitioner had earlier been unable to pursue the further statutory remedy under Section 112 before the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) because the Tribunal was not constituted/functional at the relevant time. By the time the writ was heard, however, the Government had notified 30th June 2026 as the extended date for filing GSTAT appeals (Notification dated 17.09.2025) and issued a staggered e-filing timeline for the newly operational GSTAT portal.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the writ petition should continue to be entertained now that the GSTAT has become functional and a structured filing timeline has been notified.
  2. What conditions govern the petitioner's now-available remedy of appeal under Section 112 of the GST Act.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The statutory remedy of appeal under Section 112 of the GST Act before the GSTAT could not earlier be availed as the Tribunal was not constituted and made functional.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Department corroborated that the GSTAT was not constituted/functional earlier, but submitted that this does not absolve the petitioner of the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 112(8) — full payment of the admitted amount plus 10% of the remaining disputed tax (subject to a cap of Rs.20 crore) — before an appeal can be filed.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court noted the notification dated 17.09.2025 (extending the GSTAT filing deadline to 30.06.2026) and the subsequently issued 'User Advisory for the GSTAT e-Filing Portal', which lays down a staggered filing schedule based on the date the first appeal (APL-01/03) or revisional notice (RVN-01) was filed.
  • The Court held that since the appellate forum (GSTAT) is now functional and a structured filing window has been notified, it would not be proper for the writ Court to keep such writ petitions pending, as the dispute can be adjudicated by the GSTAT itself; the petitioner was directed to deposit the pre-deposit required under Section 112(8) and file the appeal within the applicable staggered timeline.
  • The Court clarified it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the First Appellate Order.
  • The writ petition was disposed of with directions rather than being decided on merits.

Important Clarification

Once the GST Appellate Tribunal becomes constituted and functional, and a structured e-filing timeline (staggered by reference to the original first-appeal/revisional notice date) has been notified, writ courts will decline to keep pending writ petitions filed only because the Tribunal was earlier non-functional — taxpayers are directed to avail the Section 112 appellate remedy within the applicable window, subject to the statutory pre-deposit under Section 112(8), without the writ court expressing any view on the underlying merits.

Sections Involved

  • Section 73, Central/Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – basis of the original assessment order under challenge.
  • Section 112(1) and (8), Central/Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – provide for appeal to the GST Appellate Tribunal and prescribe the mandatory pre-deposit (full admitted amount plus 10% of remaining disputed tax, capped at Rs.20 crore) for filing such appeal.

Decision – In Favour of

The writ petition was disposed of with directions to pursue the now-available GSTAT appellate remedy — a procedural outcome, without a decision on merits, that is broadly neutral though it requires the Assessee to comply with pre-deposit conditions to proceed.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Orissa at Cuttack
Case No.: W.P.(C) No.10982 of 2025
Coram: Hon'ble the Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Hon'ble Mr. 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.