[Orissa HC] Writ Remedy Not Maintainable Once GST Appellate Tribunal Becomes Functional

Introduction:

In the matter of Shiva Prasad Pattnaik v. Commissioner, Commercial Tax & GST, Odisha[i], the Hon’ble Orissa High Court examined whether a writ petition challenging GST demand and appellate orders could be entertained once the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) had been constituted and made operational. Whereas, it was held by the High Court held that writ jurisdiction is available only when the statutory appellate forum is unavailable or non-functional; once the GSTAT became functional with notified timelines and statutory safeguards, the Petitioner was required to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

Brief Facts:

• The Petitioner challenged an order dated 25.07.2022 passed by the CT & GST Officer for the tax period April 2019 to March 2020 under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘GST Act’), which was affirmed by the first appellate authority on 27.03.2023.
• The Petitioner invoked writ jurisdiction contending that the remedy of appeal under Section 112 of the GST Act was illusory, as the GST Appellate Tribunal had not been constituted at the relevant time. During the pendency of the writ petition, the GSTAT was constituted and made functional. The Central Government also issued a notification extending the time for filing appeals, and a User Advisory for the GSTAT e-filing portal prescribed staggered filing windows and extended deadlines.
• Despite these developments, the Petitioner sought continuation of the writ proceedings instead of filing a statutory appeal before the GSTAT.

Held:

• The Hon’ble High Court declined to entertain the writ petition and directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal before the GSTAT.
• It was held that writ jurisdiction may be invoked where the appellate forum is absent or non-functional; however, once the statutory forum becomes operational, the writ remedy ceases to be maintainable. It was further emphasized that statutory conditions for appeal, including the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 112(8) of the GST Act, must be strictly complied with and cannot be bypassed through writ proceedings.
• Considering that the GSTAT was functional and extended timelines had been notified in a staggered manner, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with directions to the petitioner to deposit the prescribed amount and file an appeal before the GSTAT within the notified timelines. It was clarified that if the appeal is filed in compliance with statutory requirements, the GSTAT shall entertain it.

Analysis:

The judgment reiterates the settled principle that writ jurisdiction is residual and exceptional, meant to prevent denial of justice where no efficacious statutory remedy exists. Once the GSTAT was constituted and procedural mechanisms for filing appeals were notified, the rationale for invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India ceased to exist. The High Court’s insistence on compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement underscores judicial reluctance to dilute statutory conditions through writ jurisdiction. By recognising the staggered and extended timelines notified for filing GSTAT appeals, the High Court ensured that taxpayers are not prejudiced while simultaneously preserving the legislative scheme of appellate adjudication under GST.

---

[i] [2026] 183 taxmann.com 74 (Orissa)[02-02-2026)