HC Directs GSTN to Activate Portal, Upholding Assessee’s Right to Appeal.
Issue
What is the appropriate legal remedy for a taxpayer who is unable to validate their statutory appeal because their GST portal has been rendered inactive, thereby preventing them from making the mandatory online pre-deposit required under Section 107 of the CGST Act?
Facts
- The petitioner, a registered taxpayer, found that their GST portal status was showing as “inactive,” even though their registration had not been cancelled.
- An adverse adjudication order was passed against them for the period April 2020 to March 2021.
- The petitioner attempted to file an appeal offline but could not complete the process. The validation of an appeal is contingent on the payment of a mandatory pre-deposit, which can only be made through the online GST portal.
- Due to the inactive portal, the petitioner was in a deadlock, unable to exercise their statutory right to appeal.
- The State authorities confirmed the portal’s inactive status. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking judicial intervention.
Decision
- Recognizing the unique and technically challenging situation, the High Court intervened to protect the petitioner’s right to appeal.
- It issued a direct and time-bound mandamus to the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) to activate the petitioner’s portal within four weeks.
- To prevent any coercive action in the interim, the court stayed the operation of the original demand order for six weeks or until two weeks after the portal’s activation, whichever is later.
- The court laid down a clear path forward: upon activation of the portal, the petitioner must pay the mandatory pre-deposit, after which their appeal shall be regularized and heard on its merits by the appellate authority.
Key Takeaways
- Right to Appeal Cannot Be Denied by System Glitches: A taxpayer’s fundamental statutory right to appeal cannot be defeated by procedural or technical failures of the GST portal.
- Judicial Intervention to Rectify System Failures: The High Courts have the power to issue direct orders to GSTN to resolve technical issues that are creating a legal impasse for taxpayers.
- Pre-Deposit is a Prerequisite: The case underscores that the payment of the pre-deposit is an indispensable condition for filing a valid appeal. An inactive portal effectively blocks this crucial step.
- Stay Orders Provide Necessary Protection: By staying the original order, the court ensures that the tax authorities cannot initiate recovery proceedings while the taxpayer is trying to overcome a system-related hurdle to file their appeal.
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Ashirvad Food Products (P.) Ltd.
v.
Additional/Joint Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax
Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.
WPA 12105 of 2025
SEPTEMBER 26, 2025
K. Roy and Ms. Sreeja Mukherjee for the Petitioner. Tanoy Chakraborty, Saptak Sanyal, Shiv Shankar Banerjee and Ms. Aishwarya Rajyashree for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, praying for a direction upon the concerned respondents, in particular, the respondent No. 1 to allow the petitioner to access the GST portal of GSTIN 19AAECA9585B1ZH. It is the petitioner’s case that although, the petitioner has registration under the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”), however, since status of the petitioner’s portal is showing „inactive’, the petitioner is unable to put in the pre deposit in connection with an appeal filed by the petitioner from the order dated 17th January, 2025 in respect of the tax period April, 2020 to March, 2021 under section 74 of the said Act.
2. Ms. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that finding no other alternative, though the appeal was filed offline, however, without the pre deposit which can only be paid through the portal, the appeal cannot be validated and as such under compelling circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court.
3. Mr. Chakraborty learned advocate for the State would, however, confirm on instruction that the registration of the petitioner has not been cancelled but the same is only at present inactive.
4. When the matter came up for consideration on 15th September, 2025, this Court noted that Goods and Service Tax Network in short (GSTIN) was a necessary party. As such, on the prayer of the petitioner, this Court added GSTIN as a party respondent. Ms. Aishwarya Rajyashree, learned advocate for the added respondent was directed to take appropriate instruction in the matter. Today she would submit that she is yet to receive further instructions.
5. Considering the peculiar facts noted hereinabove, I am of the view that no fruitful purpose shall be served by keeping the writ petition pending. As such, I direct the added respondent to activate the petitioner’s portal within a period of 4 weeks from date. The order dated 17th January, 2025 shall remain stayed for a period of 6 weeks, or for a period of 2 weeks till after activation of the portal, whichever is later, though such order of injunction shall not continue beyond the end of November, 2025.
6. Once the portal is activated, the petitioner shall put in the pre deposit whereupon the petitioner’s appeal shall be regularized and the appeal shall be heard on merits.
7. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of without any order as to costs.