When to approach GSTAT and whether writ remedy is still possible through high court.

This is one of the most important questions as on date as the deadline of 30/06/2026 for filing appeal in GSTAT against OIA dated up to 31/03/2026 is fast approaching and so far more that 12,000 appeals have been successfully filed in GSTAT. The recent trend on writs before high court is that in many cases the writs are simply dismissed by quoting the efficacious alternate remedy as GSTAT is fully functional now. In all these cases, the required first appeal or second appeal, as the case may be are required to be preferred as soon as possible once the high court order is received rejecting the writ on the ground of alternate remedy.

It does not mean that first appeal or second appeal is the only remedy in GST cases as on date. There are some situations where writ remedy is weak and certain other situations where writ remedy is strong. Despite the functioning of the GSTAT, several writs are disposed by high courts even today and in majority of such cases the OIO and OIA are set aside and case is remanded to jurisdictional authorities. There are some rare cases, where the issue is very strong, the high court directly disposes the case by setting aside or quashing the GST order passed by authorities and the department has to either forego the demand or refund the excess GST. This has to be done even when they prefer SLP/CA before the top court of our country.

High Courts differ in certain issues such as single show cause notice for more than one financial year, condonation of delay beyond the limits given under section 107(4) / 112 (6). Hence, these are some of the areas where we have to go for the normal appeal route and strengthen case based on facts as well as legal grounds. Condonation of delay is not completely ruled out but risky and may be compared with the booking of a train ticket at 10 AM under tatkal quota where only the luck decides the issue. Hence, all taxpayers as well as tax professionals are requested to strictly adhere the time limit of three months for preferring the appeal without resorting to additional one month / three months which falls within the powers of the appellate authorities. Even the time limit for preferring the second appeal must be strictly adhered as GSTAT may not condone even one day delay unless the taxpayer is prevented from filing the appeal in time for factors beyond his control.

There are several situations where writs still work even against the adjudication order itself. Let us examine five such situations, where the taxpayer may go for normal appeal route in case stake involved is low and file writ before the jurisdictional high court in case stake involved is very high. This helps the taxpayer to get the remedy as expeditiously as possible. This is the most important factor on time as normal appeal route is in years whereas writ route may be in months.

Case 1: Section 16 (2) (c) has been ruled down by two high courts quoting the reason that buyer is not responsible for seller's default unless the buyer has not paid the GST to the seller. In case conditions of section 16 (2) (a), (aa), (b) and (ba) are satisfied, then c is not required to be looked in to. Clause c is meant for buyers who collude with seller or has not paid the dues to the seller or the transaction itself is bogus.

Case 2: Section 75 (4) on principles of natural justice is powerful and when order is passed ex parte and the taxpayer is not aware of the adjudication proceedings, the case is very strong and GSTAT as well as jurisdictional high court normally takes a lenient view on the taxpayer.

Case 3: The time limits for issuing SCN as well as passing the OIO as provided under section 73, 74 as well as 74A are mandatory and not directory. Accordingly, the SCN or OIO is invalid even if it is delayed by one day beyond the permissible limits.

Case 4: OIO passed in a hurried manner. The law provides a minimum time of 90 days to pass the order in original considering the efforts and time required by the taxpayer to furnish reply as well as submissions. Hence, only because the SCN was issued just at the fake end of the time limit for issuing such SCN, it does not empower the adjudicating officer to pass demand order in a hurried manner. Personal Hearing as well as adjournment, if required are to be considered in tax payer favor. Giving three different dates in one go for personal hearings is also incorrect.

Case 5: Demand amount exceeds the proposal in SCN. This is simply impermissible as provided in section 75 (7). Section 75 (7) is equally powerful one and in case the demand exceeds the proposed amount in SCN, OIO is invalid.

Readers may still take advantage of above 5 situations as well as other strong situations for preferring writs before jurisdictional high courts when the taxpayer is aggrieved by the OIO /OIA as the case may be.