GST Appellate Tribunal Can Grant Interim Stay; Writ Not Maintainable When Tribunal Remedy Exists

Background and Context

The Bombay High Court in The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. has clarified an important aspect of appellate procedure under the GST regime. The Court has held that the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) possesses inherent and incidental powers to grant interim relief, including staying recovery of dues while an appeal is pending.

This ruling directly addresses a recurring practical concern: whether an assessee faced with recovery action during the pendency of an appeal before GSTAT can seek interim protection from the Tribunal itself, or must approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court has decisively held that the statutory appellate framework under the CGST Act 2017 is complete and effective, and that GSTAT is competent to consider and grant interim stay orders.

Accordingly, where an assessee has already invoked the appellate remedy before GSTAT, a writ petition challenging recovery action will generally not be entertained, save in exceptional circumstances.

Factual Matrix

Orders Passed and Recovery Initiated

  1. An Order-in-Original dated December 18, 2023 was passed against The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd (“the Petitioner”), confirming GST demand and related liabilities.
  2. In appeal, the said order was upheld by the Appellate Authority through an Order-in-Appeal dated June 12, 2024.
  3. The Petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of the CGST Act 2017.
  4. During the pendency of this appeal, the State of Maharashtra & Ors. (“the Respondent”) triggered recovery proceedings by issuing:
    • an Intimation Notice dated February 3, 2026, and
    • a Recovery Notice dated February 6, 2026.

The Petitioner had also made certain payments by way of Form GST DRC-03A. Despite this, the authorities continued to pursue coercive recovery, prompting the Petitioner to approach the High Court by way of a writ petition under Article 226 seeking quashing of the above notices and interim stay against recovery.

Petitioner’s Stand

The Petitioner’s core submissions were:

  • An appeal had already been filed before GSTAT and amounts were deposited through Form GST DRC-03A.
  • Coercive recovery during the pendency of a statutory appeal, without interim protection, causes severe prejudice and defeats the purpose of appellate remedy.
  • The CGST Act 2017 does not expressly provide for a power in GSTAT to grant interim protection or stay of recovery; therefore, it was contended that only the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, could grant such relief.
  • Consequently, the writ petition was claimed to be maintainable despite the availability of an appellate remedy.

Respondent’s Position

The Respondent opposed the writ petition, contending that:

  • The Petitioner had already chosen to avail the statutory appellate remedy before GSTAT.
  • Sections 111 and 113 of the CGST Act 2017, read with the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2025, confer wide and effective powers on the Tribunal, including inherent powers and authority to deal with stay applications.
  • Since an efficacious alternative remedy existed before GSTAT, the High Court should decline to exercise its writ jurisdiction.
  • The Petitioner must approach GSTAT for all interim as well as final reliefs, including stay of recovery.

In light of this dispute, the High Court was called upon to decide whether GSTAT has the jurisdiction to grant interim relief.

Whether the GST Appellate Tribunal has jurisdiction to grant interim relief, including stay of recovery, during the pendency of an appeal?

This question also carried a secondary but crucial implication: if GSTAT does have such power, whether a writ petition challenging recovery during appeal is maintainable in the presence of this alternate remedy.

Court’s Analysis and Findings

The Bombay High Court in Writ Petition (L) No. 4698 OF 2026 undertook a detailed examination of the statutory framework and procedural rules governing GSTAT.

Scope of Section 111 – Procedural Autonomy and Civil Court Powers

The Court first referred to Section 111 of the CGST Act 2017, which lays down the procedure before the Appellate Tribunal. The provision states: