Operationalization of GSTAT: High Court Relegates Assessees to Statutory Remedy under Section 112
The landscape of Goods and Services Tax (GST) litigation is undergoing a fundamental structural shift. With the formal constitution and functional commencement of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), the judiciary is moving to restore the statutory hierarchy of dispute resolution. The High Courts, which had previously stepped in to adjudicate matters via writ jurisdiction due to the absence of a tribunal, are now directing the assessee to utilize the designated appellate machinery.
A recent pronouncement by the Allahabad High Court in the matter of M/s Hind Timber Merchant v. Additional Commissioner (Appeals) serves as a critical precedent. The Court disposed of a writ petition by granting liberty to the assessee to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 112 of the CGST Act 2017. This analysis explores the judgment's implications, the restoration of the appellate chain, and the procedural transition for pending litigations.
The Statutory Framework and the Interim Vacuum
The CGST Act, 2017 was designed with a specific, multi-tiered dispute resolution mechanism:
- Section 107: The initial appeal lies before the Appellate Authority.
- Section 112: The second appellate stage is the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT).
- Section 117: Appeals involving substantial questions of law travel to the High Court.
For a significant period following the implementation of GST, the GSTAT remained non-functional. This institutional void forced the assessee to bypass the statutory ladder and approach High Courts directly under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Courts, acknowledging the lack of an alternative efficacious remedy, routinely entertained these writs to prevent a miscarriage of justice.