Maintainability of writs challenging statutory appellate forum when forum is functional; directs pre-deposit and e-filing compliance before appeal

Maintainability of writ petitions where a statutory appellate forum exists but was previously non-functional is examined; if the appellate forum is now functional and the statutory appeal period has been extended, the writ court should refrain from adjudicating disputes that the forum can decide, and direct petitioners to pursue the statutory remedy. Where conditions such as a pre-deposit for filing appeal are statutory, the writ court must ensure compliance; petitioner was directed to make the prescribed deposit and to file the appeal through the e-filing portal within the stipulated timeline.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition challenging an order under the GST Act is maintainable where an appellate forum under Section 112 (GSTAT) has been made functional and a statutory pre-condition under Section 112(8) requires deposit of specified amounts before filing an appeal.

Analysis: The matter involves an order passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the availability of an appellate remedy under Section 112. The statutory scheme prescribes a forum of appeal (GSTAT) and a condition in sub-section (8) of Section 112 that an appellant must deposit admitted amounts and ten per cent of the remaining tax in dispute (subject to the statutory cap) before filing an appeal. The appellate forum has been made functional and a timeline for filing appeals has been notified and operationalised by government notification and user advisory, thereby providing an effective alternative statutory remedy. Given the existence of the functional appellate forum and the specified deposit requirement, the writ forum should not ordinarily entertain challenges that can be adjudicated by the designated appellate tribunal; where relief by way of appeal is available and functional, strict compliance with statutory pre-conditions for filing appeals is to be ensured.

Conclusion: The writ petition is not maintainable in the face of the available and functional appellate remedy under Section 112; the petitioner is directed to comply with the deposit requirement under Section 112(8) and to file the appeal within the notified timeline. The relief sought in the writ petition is refused.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory appellate forum is made functional and provides an effective remedy, writ jurisdiction is not to be exercised to bypass statutory pre-conditions for filing an appeal; the petitioner must comply with Section 112(8) and approach the appellate tribunal within the prescribed timeline.

---