Statutory GST appeal mechanism prevails, with writ relief declined and recovery stayed on compliance with pre-deposit and undertaking requirements.

Where a statutory appeal mechanism and recovery-stay procedure exist under the CGST framework, the HC declined to examine the merits of the GST appellate orders and consequential recovery notices in writ jurisdiction. It held that the petitioner could pursue the alternative remedy under Section 112 and the relevant CBIC circulars by making the prescribed pre-deposit, filing the required undertaking before the jurisdictional proper officer, and complying with the stipulated timeline, with recovery of the remaining demand stayed until the GST Appellate Tribunal becomes operational. The writ petitions were disposed of with liberty to follow that statutory and circular-based procedure.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging GST appellate orders and recovery notices should be disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to avail the statutory mechanism under Section 112 of the CGST Act and the relevant CBIC circulars.

Analysis: The petitions were filed against appellate orders and consequential DRC-13 recovery action. The applicable CBIC circular provided a procedure for taxpayers to make the prescribed pre-deposit, file an undertaking before the jurisdictional proper officer, and obtain stay of recovery of the remaining demand until the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal becomes operational. The Court also noted the notification prescribing the timeline for filing appeals before the Tribunal. In these circumstances, the dispute did not require substantive adjudication in writ jurisdiction and the petitioner could pursue the alternative statutory course, subject to compliance with the stated conditions within the stipulated time.

Conclusion: The petitions were disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to comply with the statutory and circular requirements, make the prescribed pre-deposit, and file the undertaking for availing stay of recovery pending appeal before the Tribunal.

Final Conclusion: The writ jurisdiction was not invoked to decide the merits of the GST demand, and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate and recovery framework.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a specific statutory mechanism exists for appeal, pre-deposit, and interim stay of recovery, writ relief may be declined and the party relegated to that remedy with appropriate liberty to comply with the prescribed conditions.

---