Statutory GST appeal must be pursued before the tribunal, with mandatory pre-deposit required for entertainment of the appeal.

Writ jurisdiction should not be used to bypass a functional GST Appellate Tribunal where an efficacious statutory appeal is available, so the petitioner must pursue the appellate remedy instead. The appeal under Section 112 is also subject to strict statutory pre-deposit requirements, including payment of admitted tax, interest, fine, fee and penalty, plus ten per cent of the remaining disputed tax within the prescribed cap. Compliance with the filing timeline and deposit condition is mandatory before the appeal can be entertained, and no view was expressed on the merits of the underlying tax order.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition should be entertained when a statutory appellate remedy before the GST Appellate Tribunal was available and the Tribunal had become functional, and (ii) whether filing of such appeal was subject to compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under the GST enactment.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition should be entertained when a statutory appellate remedy before the GST Appellate Tribunal was available and the Tribunal had become functional.

Analysis: The statutory scheme provided an appeal to the GST Appellate Tribunal against the appellate order. The writ jurisdiction was not to be used to bypass that forum once the Tribunal had been constituted and made functional. The time for filing appeals had also been extended through the notified timeline, so the petitioner was not left without an efficacious statutory remedy.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not to be retained and the petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal.

Issue (ii): Whether filing of such appeal was subject to compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under the GST enactment.

Analysis: The appeal under Section 112 was conditioned by the statutory requirement of payment of the admitted tax, interest, fine, fee and penalty and ten per cent of the remaining disputed tax, subject to the prescribed cap. The Court treated strict compliance with the statutory pre-deposit as mandatory before the Tribunal could entertain the appeal.

Conclusion: The petitioner was required to make the statutory deposit before filing the appeal, and only then could the appeal be entertained if otherwise in order.

Final Conclusion: The matter was relegated to the statutory appellate forum with directions to comply with the applicable filing timeline and pre-deposit conditions, and no opinion was expressed on the merits of the underlying tax order.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appellate remedy is available before a functional tribunal, writ jurisdiction should not be used to bypass that remedy, and the statutory conditions for filing the appeal, including pre-deposit, must be strictly complied with.

---