GSTAT Has Inherent Power to Grant Interim Relief

Centax Editorial Board

March 13, 2026

• 2 min. read

Case Details: Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra (2026) 40 Centax 54 (Bom.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

G. S. Kulkarni & Aarti Sathe, JJ.
S/Shri Prasad Paranjape, Bhavya Varma & Kevin Gogri, i/b. Lumiere Law Partners, for the Petitioner.
Shri Himanshu Takke, AGP, for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner challenged recovery action initiated by the department after an order-in-original confirmed tax liability and the first appeal was rejected by the appellate authority. Aggrieved by the order-in-appeal, the petitioner filed a further appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT). During pendency of the appeal, the department issued intimation and recovery notices, following which the petitioner informed the authorities about deposit made through Form GST DRC-03A and the pendency of the appeal before the tribunal. The petitioner thereafter approached the High Court by filing a writ petition seeking quashing of the impugned intimation and recovery notices along with interim protection from coercive recovery during pendency of the appeal. The department contended that once the appeal was pending before the tribunal, the petitioner ought to have sought appropriate interim relief from the GSTAT instead of invoking writ jurisdiction, while the petitioner argued that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to grant such interim protection. The matter was accordingly placed before the Bombay High Court.

High Court Held

The Bombay High Court held that the appellate jurisdiction conferred upon the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) under sections 111 and 113 of the CGST Act was sufficiently wide to include the inherent and incidental power to grant interim relief. The Court observed that section 111 conferred upon the tribunal powers akin to those of a civil court along with procedural autonomy, while section 113 empowered it to pass such orders as it deemed fit in the course of adjudicating appeals. It was held that the absence of an express statutory provision conferring power to grant a stay of recovery did not negate such authority, as the power to grant interim protection was incidental and necessary to ensure that the appellate remedy remained effective. The Court further noted that the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2025, were notified through Notification No. GSR 256(E), dated 24-04-2025, also clarified the tribunal’s power to pass interim orders. Accordingly, the Court held that the tribunal was competent to grant interim relief, including a stay of recovery during the pendency of the appeal and the petitioner was required to seek such relief before the GSTAT, leading to the disposal of the writ petition.