Statutory GST appeal remedy limits writ intervention, while operative release orders remain binding absent a stay or reversal.

When a statutory appellate remedy under Section 112 of the CGST Act becomes available, a challenge to a First Appellate Authority order should ordinarily proceed before the designated appellate forum rather than through writ jurisdiction, particularly where that forum can examine facts and law. The availability of the Tribunal makes first-instance writ intervention inappropriate, even if the Tribunal is not yet fully functional. An operative appellate order directing release of goods cannot be disregarded merely because the State intends to challenge it; compliance remains required unless a competent forum stays or reverses it. Protection of the State's position may be secured through a bond and local surety.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the State's challenge to the First Appellate Authority's order should be entertained in writ jurisdiction when the statutory appellate remedy under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 had become available after constitution of the Tribunal; (ii) Whether the State could withhold compliance with the First Appellate Authority's order directing release of goods when no higher forum had stayed or interfered with that order.

Issue (i): Whether the State's challenge to the First Appellate Authority's order should be entertained in writ jurisdiction when the statutory appellate remedy under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 had become available after constitution of the Tribunal.

Analysis: The order under challenge was one ordinarily appealable under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Although writ petitions had been entertained earlier because the Tribunal was not constituted, the Tribunal had since been constituted, even if not yet fully functional. Since the statutory forum could examine both facts and law, exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction at the first instance was considered inappropriate, and the State was left to pursue the statutory appeal.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the Revenue; the State was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 instead of obtaining adjudication in writ jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the State could withhold compliance with the First Appellate Authority's order directing release of goods when no higher forum had stayed or interfered with that order.

Analysis: The First Appellate Authority's order remained operative and had not been stayed or set aside by any superior forum. Mere intention of the State to challenge the order did not justify non-compliance. At the same time, equities required protection in case the State succeeded before the appellate forum, and that balance was secured by directing the assessee to furnish a bond with local surety to the satisfaction of the Assessing Authority.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the Assessee; the State could not withhold release of the goods and was required to comply with the appellate order, subject to the assessee furnishing bond and local surety.

Final Conclusion: The operative appellate order for release of goods remained enforceable unless reversed in statutory appeal, while the State's challenge was directed to be pursued before the designated appellate forum and not in writ proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: When a statutory appellate remedy becomes available for testing an order of the First Appellate Authority under the GST regime, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked to examine that order at the first instance, and until such order is stayed or reversed by a competent forum, its compliance cannot be withheld merely because a challenge is proposed.

---