Writ Petition Rejected: High Court Directs Taxpayer to GSTAT; Holds Lack of Streamlined Filing Not a Ground to Bypass Statutory Remedy

By | February 24, 2026

Writ Petition Rejected: High Court Directs Taxpayer to GSTAT; Holds Lack of Streamlined Filing Not a Ground to Bypass Statutory Remedy


1. The Core Dispute: Bypassing the Tribunal

The assessee approached the High Court through a Writ Petition to challenge a Show Cause Notice, an Order-in-Original (adjudication order), and an Order-in-Appeal (first appeal order).

  • Assessee’s Stand: They argued that the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) was not yet fully “streamlined” or functional. Because of this administrative delay and perceived legal complexities, they sought the High Court’s direct intervention.

  • Court’s Observation: The High Court questioned why the assessee had not utilized the alternative remedy of filing a second appeal under Section 112 of the CGST Act.


2. Legal Analysis: The Operational Status of GSTAT

The Court addressed the common grievance regarding the delay in setting up the GSTAT benches across India.

I. The June 2026 Deadline

The Court highlighted that the Ministry of Finance had already issued a Notification dated 17.09.2025.

  • The Notification: It provides a specific window for taxpayers to file appeals before the Appellate Tribunal.

  • The Deadline: For orders that were previously in “limbo” due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal, taxpayers now have until 30.06.2026 to file their appeals.

II. Technical vs. Jurisdictional Errors

The High Court reiterated a fundamental principle of constitutional law: Writ jurisdiction is discretionary.

  • Direct intervention is generally reserved for cases involving a total lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, or the unconstitutionality of a law.

  • In this case, the first appellate authority had the legal power to pass the order. Since there was no “jurisdictional error,” the merits of the case (facts and law) should be argued before the Tribunal, not the Writ Court.


3. Final Verdict: Directions to the Tribunal

The High Court refused to bypass the statutory process merely because the Tribunal’s administrative setup was in its early stages.

  • Verdict: The writ petition was rejected.

  • Outcome: The assessee was directed to approach the GST Appellate Tribunal to raise all contentions.

  • Key Finding: The lack of a “streamlined” process does not dilute the statutory requirement to follow the established hierarchy of appeals.


Key Takeaways for Taxpayers

  • GSTAT is Now the Gateway: With the 2025 notifications, the “waiting period” for GSTAT is largely over. High Courts are now increasingly reluctant to entertain GST writs on merits if the Tribunal is available.

  • Limitation Period: Ensure you track the June 30, 2026 deadline. If you have “parked” a case due to the absence of a Tribunal, you must now proactively file your appeal.

  • Stay of Demand: Filing an appeal before the GSTAT usually involves a pre-deposit (typically an additional 20% of the disputed tax). Once filed, the remaining demand is stayed, providing significant relief from recovery proceedings.

HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Natubhai Uttambhai Odd
v.
Additional Commissioner (Anti-evasion)*
A.S. Supehia and Pranav Trivedi, JJ.
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 504 of 2026
JANUARY  19, 2026
Vijay H Patel and Ms Lalita Dhulani for the Petitioner. Ms. Vidhi Vyas for the Respondent.
ORDER
A.S. Supehia, J.- The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
“(A) YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to admit and allow the present petition;
(B) YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order in appeal dated 29.09.2025 passed u/s 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by Respondent No. 3 (Annexure-A);
(C) YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order in original dated 20.01.2025 passed u/s 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by Respondent No. 2 (Annexure – B);
(D) YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned show cause notice dated 03.08.2024 along with corrigendum dated 08.08.2024 issued u/s 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by Respondent No. 1 (Annexure-C);
(E) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to stay the implementation and operation of the impugned order in appeal dated 29.09.2025 as well as impugned order in original dated 20.01.2025.”
2. At the outset, this Court had specifically pointed out to the learned advocate Mr. Vijay Patel for the petitioner about the alternative remedy he is having to approach before the Appellate Tribunal. However, he has submitted that filing of the appeals before the Tribunal are not yet streamlined and since there is a legal issues which are involved in the present writ petition, the same are required to be advanced before this Court and adjudicated by this Court.
3. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Vidhi Vyas appearing for the respondents has referred to the Notification dated 17.09.2025 issued by the Ministry of Finance relating to the filing of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under the Act, on or before 30.06.2026.
“MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Revenue)
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 17th September, 2025
S.0. 4220(E)-In exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1) of section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017), the Government, on the recommendations of the Council, hereby notifies the 30 day of June, 2026, as the date upto which appeal may be filed before the Appellate Tribunal under this Act in respect of all cases where the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to the person preferring the appeal before the 1 day of April, 2026 and all appeals in respect of order communicated on or after 1 April, 2026 may be filed before the Appellate Tribunal within three months from the date on which such order is communicated to the person preferring the appeal.”
4. Thus, in view of the aforesaid availability of the alternative remedy, the submissions advanced by learned advocate Mr. Patel for the petitioner pointing out the factual aspects and the observations of the Appellate Court relating to the issues, can always be dealt by an appropriate Tribunal, which is already constituted. Merely because the filing is not streamlined, will not dilute the statutory provisions of filing the appeal against the impugned order.
5. Since we do not find that there is any jurisdictional error committed by the appellate authority and the order is bereft of any jurisdiction, all the contentions which are raised before us in the writ petition, will always be taken care by the Tribunal. Under the circumstances, the present writ petition stands rejected since the petitioner is having alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.
6. At this stage, learned advocate Mr. Patel requested that in case the Tribunal does not take up the appeal within a reasonable time, liberty may be reserved in favour of the petitioner to challenge the recovery proceedings before this Court.
7. We clarify that it is always open for the petitioner to make appropriate application/ prayer for staying the recovery and in case the Tribunal does not pass any order on the application or such prayer or passes an order rejecting the such prayer, it is always open for the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before this Court.