2026 (3) TMI 730 - HC - GST

Pre-deposit requirement under Section 112(8) must be complied with before filing appeal; writ dismissed as statutory remedy is functional.

Where a statutory appellate forum has been made functional, writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily supplant the prescribed remedy; accordingly the ... Availability of writ remedy - non-constitution and non-functional of the GSTAT - Statutory framework provides an appellate forum under Section 112 - Requirement of payment under Section 112(8). Availability of writ remedy where statutory appellate forum is non functional - HELD THAT:- The Court held that when the statutory appellate tribunal is not constituted or functional an aggrieved person may approach the writ court so as not to be left remediless; however, the availability of writ relief does not permit the Court to displace or relax statutory conditions attached to the appellate remedy where those conditions are operative. The principle was applied to the facts that the GSTAT has been made functional and timelines extended, and therefore the dispute is to be adjudicated by the designated forum rather than retained in the writ court. [Paras 4, 5] Writ petition not retained on merits; petitioner directed to pursue remedy before the GSTAT as the forum is functional and timelines have been provided Mandatory pre deposit condition under Section 112(8) of the GST Act - HELD THAT:- The Court reaffirmed that conditions in sub section (8) of Section 112 - payment in full of admitted amount and ten per cent of the disputed tax (subject to the statutory ceiling) - remain binding and the writ court will ensure strict compliance with such statutory pre conditions. In the present matter, because the GSTAT has been made functional and filing windows extended, the petitioner was directed to deposit the amounts required under Section 112(8) (if not already deposited) and file the appeal within the timeline published in the User Advisory and government notification; if the appeal is in order under Section 112 and relevant rules, it shall be entertained by the GSTAT. [Paras 3, 4, 5] Petitioner directed to make the deposits required by Section 112(8) and file the appeal before the GSTAT within the prescribed timeline; GSTAT to entertain appeals found in order Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of by directing the petitioner to comply with the pre deposit requirement of Section 112(8) and to file the appeal before the GSTAT within the extended timelines; no opinion was expressed on the merits of the first appellate order. Issues: Whether the writ petition seeking relief against an order passed under Section 73 of the GST Act is maintainable when the statutory appellate forum under Section 112 is or becomes functional, and whether the statutory pre deposit requirement under Section 112(8) must be complied with before filing an appeal before the GSTAT.Analysis: The Court found that where a statutory forum for second appeals is provided and has been made functional, the writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily supplant that remedy; however, in circumstances where the appellate tribunal is not constituted or functional a writ may be entertained to prevent remedilessness. The Court noted the legislative requirement in Section 112(8) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 imposing a pre deposit (payment of admitted amount and ten per cent of the remaining tax in dispute subject to the statutory cap) as a condition precedent to filing an appeal, and observed that this statutory condition must be strictly complied with even where the writ jurisdiction is sought. The Court took into account the executive timeline and notifications including the Government notification extending and specifying the period for filing appeals before the GSTAT and the User Advisory for the GSTAT e Filing Portal, and concluded that since the GSTAT has been made functional and filing timelines have been prescribed, the petitioner should avail the appellate remedy by complying with Section 112(8).Conclusion: The writ petition is dismissed; the petitioner is directed to comply with the pre deposit requirement under Section 112(8) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and to file the appeal before the GSTAT within the timeline specified by the notified portal advisory. This conclusion is against the petitioner.