Interim Relief: appellate forum may grant stay of recovery; limited interim protection can enable filing of an interim application.

Whether an appellate forum under the CGST framework may grant interim reliefs and whether a superior court should grant interim protection to permit tribunal filing are addressed. The article explains that statutory provisions conferring appellate jurisdiction together with procedural rules and inherent powers imply authority to grant interlocutory orders, including stays of recovery; outcome: the appellate forum can grant such interim reliefs. It further explains that writ jurisdiction should generally require invocation of the appellate remedy, but limited interim protection confined to preserving status quo may be granted to enable filing and disposal of an interim application before the tribunal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is empowered to pass interim orders including stay of recovery pending disposal of appeals; (ii) Whether limited interim protection against recovery should be granted by the High Court pending filing and disposal of an interim application before the Tribunal.

Issue (i): Whether the Appellate Tribunal has jurisdiction to pass interim orders including stay of recovery pending disposal of appeals.

Analysis: Sections 111, 112 and 113 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read together confer appellate jurisdiction, power to regulate procedure and powers analogous to a civil court on the Appellate Tribunal and permit the Tribunal to pass orders "as it thinks fit" after hearing the parties. The Tribunal's procedural rules (Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2025) recognise interlocutory applications and preserve inherent powers to make orders necessary to meet ends of justice and prevent abuse of process. By necessary implication, powers incidental and conducive to making the appellate jurisdiction effective include power to grant interim reliefs such as protection against recovery pending disposal of appeals.

Conclusion: The Appellate Tribunal is empowered to pass interim orders, including orders staying recovery pending disposal of appeals.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court should grant limited interim protection against a recovery notice until the petitioner files and the Tribunal decides an interim application.

Analysis: The availability of an efficacious alternative remedy before the Tribunal is material to the exercise of writ jurisdiction. Given that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain interlocutory applications and the Tribunal's rules provide for filing and disposal of such applications, the appropriate course is to require the applicant to move the Tribunal. However, where urgent recovery steps are threatened and the applicant has not yet been able to file before the Tribunal, limited interim protection to enable filing and disposal of an interim application is appropriate. Such protection must be confined to preserving status quo pending Tribunal consideration and must not decide merits of the appeal.

Conclusion: Limited interim protection is granted to enable filing of an interim application before the Tribunal; respondents are restrained from acting on the recovery notice until the interim application is filed and decided.

Final Conclusion: The appellate remedy before the Appellate Tribunal includes power to grant interim reliefs; petitioners must seek interim relief from the Tribunal, but limited interim protection may be granted by the High Court to enable the petitioner to approach the Tribunal without prejudice to the merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where statutory provisions confer broad appellate powers and procedural rules preserve inherent powers, the appellate forum possesses by necessary implication the incidental authority to grant interim reliefs, including stay of recovery, to make the appellate remedy effective.

---