From Writs to Tribunal: GST Litigation Gets Back on Track - High Courts are closing the writ door. GSTAT is now the only highway

1. Background and Legislative Context

Under the CGST Act, 2017, a structured appellate hierarchy is envisaged:

• Section 107 – First appeal to Appellate Authority
• Section 112 – Second appeal to GST Appellate Tribunal
• Section 117 – Appeal to High Court on substantial questions of law

However, for several years, the non-constitution of GSTAT created a vacuum in the appellate mechanism, compelling taxpayers to invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. High Courts across the country entertained such writ petitions as a matter of necessity, not preference.

This situation has now materially changed. The Central Government has:

• Constituted GST Appellate Tribunals vide order dated 24.09.2025;
• Appointed Presidents and Members vide Office Order No. 03/2025 dated 26.12.2025; and
• Notified procedural rules under Section 111 of the CGST Act vide notification dated 24.04.2025.

These developments have triggered a judicial reorientation.

2. Brief Facts of the Case

In M/s Hind Timber Merchant Versus Additional Commissioner Grade-2 Appeals Judicial Division-I State Tax And Another - 2025 (1) TMI 1718 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT :

• The petitioner had approached the Allahabad High Court by way of a writ petition against an adverse appellate order under Section 107.
• The writ was entertained earlier solely because GSTAT was not constituted.
• During pendency, the Tribunal was constituted and made operational.

The Court, taking note of these developments, examined whether any purpose would be served in continuing to entertain the writ petition.

3. Key Observations of the Allahabad High Court

The Court recorded the following critical findings:

1. GSTAT is now functional – With constitution, appointment of Members, and procedural rules in place, the appellate mechanism is “put to motion”.
2. Writ jurisdiction was invoked only due to absence of Tribunal – That circumstance no longer survives.
3. No useful purpose in keeping the writ pending – Once the statutory forum is available, the extraordinary jurisdiction should recede.

Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of with liberty to file an appeal before GSTAT.

4. Operative Directions of the Court

The Court issued detailed transitional directions, which are of substantial practical importance:

These directions balance procedural discipline with equitable relief.

5. Legal Analysis

5.1 Doctrine of Exhaustion of Alternative Remedy

It is settled law that where an effective statutory remedy exists, writ jurisdiction should not be invoked (ref. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar Versus Dunlop India Limited And Other - 1984 (11) TMI 63 - Supreme Court (LB)). The Allahabad High Court’s approach is squarely aligned with this principle.

5.2 Exceptional Nature of Writ Jurisdiction in Tax Matters

Tax jurisprudence consistently holds that writs should be entertained only in cases of:

• Lack of jurisdiction
• Violation of principles of natural justice
• Constitutional invalidity

The present judgment reinforces that absence of Tribunal was a temporary exception, not a permanent bypass.

6. Consequences of the Judgment

This decision has wide ramifications:

6.1 For Pending Writ Petitions

• High Courts are likely to dispose of similar writs with identical directions.
• Taxpayers will be redirected to GSTAT.

6.2 For Future Litigation Strategy

• Routine challenges to assessment or appellate orders through writ petitions will face strong judicial resistance.
• GSTAT will become the primary and dominant forum for second appeals.

6.3 For Limitation and Pre-deposit Issues

• The extended window up to 30 June 2026 provides crucial relief.
• Deposits already made under court directions can be strategically mapped to Section 112(8) compliance.

7. Way Forward for Taxpayers and Professionals

The judgment necessitates immediate and structured action:

7.1 Identification Exercise

• List all cases where writs were filed solely due to non-constitution of GSTAT.

7.2 Appeal Preparation

• Compile records, grounds, and evidences for filing appeals under Section 112.

7.3 Deposit Reconciliation

• Align amounts deposited under interim HC orders with statutory pre-deposit requirements.

7.4 Strategic Shift

• Reorient litigation strategy from High Court-centric to Tribunal-centric advocacy.

8. Likely Judicial Trend Across High Courts

Given the uniformity of the statutory framework, similar orders can reasonably be expected from other High Courts where writs were entertained due to GSTAT non-constitution

This will bring nationwide consistency in GST appellate discipline.

9. Conclusion

The decision of the Allahabad High Court is not merely procedural—it is structural. It signifies:

• Restoration of the legislative design of GST dispute resolution;
• Judicial insistence on statutory discipline; and
• A decisive shift of GST litigation to the Tribunal level.

For taxpayers, the message is unambiguous:

“The era of bypassing the appellate ladder is over. The era of GSTAT has begun.”

-----

By: CA. Chitresh Gupta

Mobile: 99103 67918

https://www.linkedin.com/in/ca-chitresh-gupta-22795920