Calcutta High Court Allows Shift from Writ Petition to GST Appellate Tribunal Remedy

Background of the Dispute

In Novartis Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. (Calcutta High Court), the assessee had initially approached the Calcutta High Court under its writ jurisdiction to challenge an appellate order passed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the corresponding provisions of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The impugned appellate order was dated 10.05.2022. The assessee, instead of immediately pursuing the statutory appellate route, invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court by filing WPA 11467 of 2022, primarily because, at that time, the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) under Section 112(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 had not yet been set up.

Subsequently, circumstances changed with the constitution of the Appellate Tribunal and issuance of a key Central Government notification. In light of this development, the assessee filed an application (CAN 1 of 2026) seeking permission to withdraw the pending writ petition so that it could avail the newly operational statutory appellate mechanism.

Prayer Before the High Court

The assessee’s application specifically requested:

  • Leave of the Court to withdraw WPA 11467 of 2022; and
  • Liberty to pursue an appeal under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with similar provisions under the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, against the appellate order dated 10.05.2022.

The writ petition itself questioned the appellate order passed under Section 107, which had been issued by the appellate authority on April 6, 2024 (referred to as the “10.07.22 order dated April 6, 2024” in the text of the judgment). That order arose from proceedings under both the Central and State GST enactments.

Position of the State Authorities

Although the order records that, despite service of notice, no one appeared for the State respondents at the time of hearing of the application, the order also notes the stand taken on behalf of the State during the proceedings:

  • It was submitted that the assessee now had an effective alternate remedy before the GST Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 112(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
  • At the time of filing of the writ petition, such a Tribunal was admittedly not in existence; therefore, the assessee had originally approached the High Court directly.
  • Once the Tribunal came into force and the Central Government issued a specific notification extending the time to file appeals in respect of older orders, the State’s position was that the assessee should now exhaust the statutory appellate process rather than pursue the writ.

This aligns with the well-established principle that writ jurisdiction is generally not exercised where a complete and efficacious statutory remedy is available, unless exceptional grounds exist.

Central Government Notification Dated 17 September 2025

The Court took cognizance of a crucial notification issued by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, bearing S.O. 4220(E), dated 17 September 2025. Using its powers under Section 112(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the Central Government specified special timelines for filing appeals before the Appellate Tribunal.

The notification, as reproduced in the order, states that:

“S. ‘O. 4220(E).