Case Details: S.N.M. Business Pvt. Ltd. Versus Additional Commissioner Of State Tax (Appeal), Bhubaneswar (2026) 38 Centax 13 (Ori.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Harish Tandon, CJ. & Murahari SRI Raman, J.
- Shri Madhab Lal Agarwal, Adv., for the Petitioner.
- Shri B.A. Prusty, Senior Standing Counsel, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee, being an appellant-assessee, had preferred a statutory appeal against an order passed by the Superintendent, which came to be rejected by the Appellate Authority. Aggrieved thereby, a writ petition was filed before the High Court on the ground that although a statutory remedy of appeal was provided under section 112 before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), such remedy was illusory at the relevant time since GSTAT had not been constituted or made functional. The assessee contended that in the absence of a functional appellate forum, invocation of writ jurisdiction was justified as a person could not be rendered remediless, and therefore the writ petition deserved to be entertained despite the existence of an alternate statutory remedy. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that where a statutory forum of appeal is provided under the CGST and the corresponding State GST Act, a writ court can be approached to assail an order only in circumstances where such appellate forum is not constituted or not functional, as a litigant cannot be left without any remedy. The Court held that once the appellate forum envisaged under section 112 has been constituted and made functional, and the statutory scheme has further extended the period for filing appeals in a fragmented manner, it would not be appropriate for the writ court to keep such writ petitions pending. The Court applied the statutory framework to the facts and held that the dispute raised in the writ petition was squarely adjudicable by GSTAT in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The High Court accordingly held that the assessee must avail the statutory appellate remedy before GSTAT, subject to compliance with the requirement of pre-deposit under section 112, and declined to entertain the writ petition on merits, thereby deciding the matter in favour of the revenue.
