AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
One High Court order from Orissa High Court and two High Court orders from Gauhati High Court passed during first week of June 2026 reveal that writs are still being entertained and availability of efficacious alternate remedy from GSTAT by way of second appeal is not a bar to reject the writ. This happens only in few cases as mostly various high courts suggest alternate remedy by way of proper appeal consequent to setting up of the required number of benches in GSTAT during September 2025. Two issues are involved in the above three cases and the first appellate authorities all over India may start disposing the first appeal based on merits rather than simply rejecting on flimsy ground to enable the jurisdictional high court to quash such OIA.
The first issue is on rejection of first appeal by the additional commissioner (appeals) on the ground of limitation, despite the fact that there was no delay beyond the condonable date. In this case SCN was issued covering the period from April 2022 to March 2023 and the OIO was passed on 15/10/2025. The taxpayer preferred the first appeal which was duly filed on 13/02/2026 with application for condonation of delay. Though based on various high court rulings as well as legal precedents the appeal could have been filed up to 15/02/2026 with condonation of delay which is within the powers of the first appellate authority, the same was rejected on the sole ground that there was a delay in filing the appeal and hence the first appellate authority has no powers to entertain this appeal.
When the taxpayer preferred the writ before the Orissa High Court, the division bench on 05/06/2026 held that the appellants were well within the stipulated time as the period three months and one month starts from 16/10/2025 and ends on 15/02/2026 and the appeal having filed on 13/02/2026 itself, the first appellate authority is not correct in his decision. M/s. Mahesh Value Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus Chief Commissioner of CT & GST and others. - 2026 (6) TMI 515 - ORISSA HIGH COURT refers. The operative portion reads as ' 9. In the above premises, on the face of glaring error on face of the record, acceding to the suggestion of the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Commercial Tax and Goods and Services Tax Organisation to relegate the petitioner to avail alternative remedy, would not enure to benefit of any of the parties.
Remarks: The adjudications officers as well as first appellate authorities in majority of the cases pass orders in such a manner that the orders help improving GST Collections irrespective of whether any further appeals are preferred or not. The worst affected category is small and medium business people who find it difficult to litigate and pay the demanded amount for buying the peace despite the same is illegal as the taxpayer honestly believes that the officers are right. This is the most appropriate time that business people should be more vigilant on bogus demands and the tax officials must also come forward to pass qualitative adjudication orders which stands firm before GSTAT as GSTAT is already in place.
The Gauhati High Court has passed two orders recently wherein the genuine buyer has not violated any provisions whereas due to the fact that the seller has indulged in some bogus transactions with some other buyers, ITC was disallowed. The first order is in M/s. Metal Syndicate, Sri Dipak Kangsa Banik, Sibdas Kangsa Banik Versus The Union of India, The Assistant Commissioner CGST And Central Excise Silchar, The Additional Commissioner Appeals Central Goods Service Tax Central Excise Customs Guwahati. - 2026 (6) TMI 436 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT where the court observed that '15. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment shows that the Division Bench has categorically held that where a purchasing dealer has entered into transactions bona fide with a registered supplier and has complied with the statutory requirements, denial of input tax credit solely on account of failure of the supplier to deposit tax would not be justified. The remedy of the Department, in such circumstances, lies against the defaulting supplier and not against a bona fide purchaser. However, where materials exist to indicate collusion or lack of bona fides in the transactions, it would be open to the Department to proceed in accordance with law'.
The second case is Sri Gurucharan Kangsa Banik Proprietor of M/s. Sree Guru Metals Versus The Union of India, The Assistant Commissioner Central Goods Service Tax Central Excise Silchar. - 2026 (6) TMI 434 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT wherein the court has ruled as '17. Accordingly, the impugned Order-in-Original No. 37/GST/AC/SIL/2023-24 dated 28.03.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax & Central Excise Division, Silchar, is hereby set aside and quashed. It is, however, made clear that the respondent authorities shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law in the event there are materials indicating that the transactions in question were not bona fide or were entered into in collusion with the suppliers, as observed by the Division Bench in National Plasto Moulding (supra)'.
Remarks: The issues arising out of Section 16 (2) (c) are settled as on date as this section has already been ruled down. Hence it is appealed to the tax officials to pass reasonable orders in future so that the OIO as well as OIO are not set aside or quashed at a later date by a higher court.
It may be concluded that orders have started to come from GSTAT giving an idea as to how the cases shall be decided by the GSTAT in the coming periods. Writs preferred before High Courts were mostly remanded to the jurisdictional tax authorities for fresh considerations based on the observations made by the high court. As there is no need to prefer writs as on date except under unavoidable circumstances, taxpayers as well as tax professionals may take the advantages of first as well as second appeals from now onwards in all the deserving cases.