GST Appellate Tribunal procedure and statutory deposit requirement prompt transfer of matters to tribunal and disposal of writ petition

Procedure and constitution of the GST Appellate Tribunal were framed and appointments made, prompting transfer of matters to the Tribunal as it became functional; pending writ petition was disposed because continued adjudication before the High Court served no useful purpose. The court noted prior directions requiring a deposit in addition to sums under subsection (6) of section 107 and observed that subsection (8) of section 112 conditions entertainment of appeals on prescribed deposits under specified clauses; without adjudicating validity of impugned orders the writ was disposed of in light of tribunal functioning.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioners are permitted to prefer an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal under section 112 of the GST Act in view of constitution and functioning of the Tribunal; (ii) Whether the limitation for preferring such appeal is extended and, if so, up to what date; (iii) Whether deposit made pursuant to the interim order before this Court satisfies the requirement of sub-section (8) of section 112 of the GST Act; (iv) What procedural directions should govern lodging and verification of the appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioners are permitted to prefer an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal under section 112 of the GST Act in view of constitution and functioning of the Tribunal.

Analysis: The Central Government has constituted the GST Appellate Tribunal and framed rules for its procedure; the Tribunal's constitution and appointment of Members indicate the tribunal is functioning and appeals under section 112 are now maintainable before it. The Court declined to decide validity of the impugned orders and instead addressed the appropriate forum and availability of statutory appeal.

Conclusion: The petitioners are permitted to prefer an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal; conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the limitation for preferring such appeal is extended and, if so, up to what date.

Analysis: The Court, noting the recent constitution of the Tribunal and the notification extending relevant timelines, allowed a specific extended period for filing appeals to avoid loss of remedy due to earlier non-availability of the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The period for preferring the appeal is extended up to June 30, 2026; conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether deposit made pursuant to the interim order before this Court satisfies the requirement of sub-section (8) of section 112 of the GST Act.

Analysis: The Court recorded that an amount was directed to be deposited while entertaining the writ petition and provided that if such amount was deposited, it would be treated as compliance with the deposit requirement under section 112(8), subject to production of certified interim order and proof of deposit when preferring the appeal.

Conclusion: Deposit made in compliance with this Court's interim order shall be treated as satisfying section 112(8); conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): What procedural directions should govern lodging and verification of the appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis: The Court directed that the Registrar or verifying officer shall notify petitioners of defects within three weeks of filing and allowed 30 days for curing defects, and clarified that appeals will be entertained despite limitation objections and decided on merits in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The Tribunal shall allow the appeal without limitation objection if filed by June 30, 2026; defects may be intimated within three weeks and cured within 30 days; conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioners to prefer appeals before the constitutionally notified GST Appellate Tribunal subject to the specified timelines and procedural directions, preserving the petitioners' statutory remedy without adjudicating the merits of the impugned orders.

---