The High Court of Orissa, in the case of M/s. Mayuri, Cuttack vs. Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), CT & GST Territorial Range, Cuttack-II and Others [W.P.(C) No.23960 / 2025], delivered its order on May 11, 2026. The Court declined to entertain the writ petition challenging a Section 73 demand order after noting that the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) had become functional and statutory appellate remedy under Section 112 was now available. The Court pointed out that:

“It would not be proper for the Writ Court to keep such writ petitions pending as the dispute raised by the petitioner in the instant writ petition can be adjudicated by the said forum.”

The petitioner challenged the adjudication order dated April 26, 2024 passed under Section 73 of the CGST/OGST Act for the tax period April 2018 to March 2019, along with the appellate order dated May 3, 2025 affirming the demand. The petitioner contended that although a statutory second appeal remedy existed under Section 112 of the GST Act, the same could not earlier be availed because the GST Appellate Tribunal was not constituted and operational at the relevant time.

The State Tax Department acknowledged that the GSTAT was non-functional earlier but argued that the statutory requirement under Section 112(8) mandating pre-deposit of disputed tax cannot be bypassed merely because the writ jurisdiction was invoked. The Department further pointed out that the Central Government, through Notification dated September 17, 2025, extended the timeline for filing appeals before GSTAT till June 30, 2026 in eligible matters.

The Court observed that once the appellate forum under the statute becomes functional, parties should ordinarily pursue the alternate statutory remedy instead of continuing writ proceedings before the High Court.

The Division Bench noted that the GSTAT had already become operational and detailed timelines for staggered filing of appeals had also been issued through the “User Advisory for GSTAT e-Filing Portal.” The Court reiterated that although writ petitions may be entertained when no appellate forum exists, litigants cannot avoid mandatory statutory conditions attached to filing of appeals.

Therefore, the High Court disposed of the writ petition directing the petitioner to deposit the amount required under Section 112(8) of the GST Act and file an appeal before the GSTAT within the prescribed timeline. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the tax dispute.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below.