Case Details: Shiva Prasad Pattnaik vs. Commissioner, Commercial Tax & GST, Odisha (2026) 39 Centax 87 (Ori.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Harish Tandon, CJ. & Murahari Sri Raman, J.
- Shri A.S. Mohanty, Adv., for the Petitioner.
- Shri Seshadeb Das, Additional Standing Counsel for CT & GST Department, for the Opposite Parties.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner challenged a GST demand order for the period April 2019 to March 2020 passed by the CT & GST Officer and affirmed by the first appellate authority by filing a writ petition, contending that the statutory appellate remedy under Section 112 of the GST Act was unavailable due to non-constitution of the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT). During the pendency of the writ, the GSTAT was constituted and made functional, and the Government notified extended timelines along with a user advisory prescribing staggered filing windows and conditions for filing appeals, including the mandatory statutory pre-deposit.
High Court Held
The High Court held that while writ jurisdiction may be invoked when the statutory appellate forum is absent or non-functional, once the GSTAT became operational and timelines for filing appeals were notified, the writ petition against appealable orders was no longer maintainable. The petitioner was directed to comply with the statutory pre-deposit requirement and file an appeal before the GSTAT within the prescribed timelines, and the Tribunal was directed to entertain the appeal if filed in accordance with statutory requirements, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
