TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
