Published 14 October 2026
For most of GST’s first decade, a large share of disputes reached the High Courts not by appeal but by writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Some petitions challenged orders passed without a hearing. Others challenged orders by an officer with no power to pass them, or rules said to exceed the Act. Many simply had nowhere else to go, because the Appellate Tribunal did not yet exist. The Tribunal is now working, and the courts’ answer to the first question in any writ petition, whether they will hear it at all, has shifted.
This guide covers when a High Court will entertain a writ despite the appeals the Act provides. The statutory route above the Tribunal is covered in the previous guide. The appeals below it are covered in Appeals and Pre-Deposit.
Discretion, not a bar
Section 162 of the CGST Act provides that, “save as provided in sections 117 and 118, no civil court shall have jurisdiction” over anything done under the Act. Its words are about civil courts. The High Court’s power under Article 226 comes from the Constitution, and the courts treat the appeals in the Act as a reason for declining that power, not as a bar to it.
The governing statement is in M/s Radha Krishan Industries v State of Himachal Pradesh (Supreme Court, Civil Appeal No. 1155 of 2021, 20 April 2021).
Facts. The appellant manufactured lead in Himachal Pradesh. One of its suppliers had been found to have claimed credit on invoices from fictitious firms, and a demand of Rs 39.48 crore had been confirmed against that supplier. The Commissioner delegated his power of provisional attachment under section 83 to a Joint Commissioner. The Joint Commissioner then attached about Rs 5.03 crore of the appellant’s receivables from its customers. An earlier attachment of its receivables, on the same grounds, had been withdrawn in January 2019 after the appellant objected. The appellant’s objections to the new attachment were rejected without a hearing. The High Court dismissed its writ petition because it had “an alternative and efficacious remedy” of appeal under section 107.
The principles. The Court set out the law in paragraph 27:
(iii) Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; © the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged; (iv) An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law;
It added that where a statute creates a right and prescribes the remedy, “resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy”, and that this “rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion”. Where facts are disputed, the High Court may decline to hear the case.
The holding. The Joint Commissioner had acted as the Commissioner’s delegate, and section 107(1) gives an appeal only against an order of an “adjudicating authority”. So no appeal lay against the attachment, and the writ petition was maintainable. On the merits, the Court held that the attachment showed “a clear non-application of mind” to section 83. It also held that the refusal to hear the objections breached rule 159(5). It quashed the attachments.
Radha Krishan therefore illustrates two things. A writ lies where the Act gives no appeal at all. And where an appeal does exist, a writ is entertained only within the listed exceptions.
The other side of the rule
Five months later the Supreme Court applied the same exceptions against a taxpayer, in Assistant Commissioner of State Tax v M/s Commercial Steel Limited (Civil Appeal No. 5121 of 2021, 3 September 2021).
A consignment of steel bought from a Karnataka supplier was intercepted in Telangana on 12 December 2019. The invoice named a delivery point the truck had already passed. The officer suspected that a local sale was being disguised as an inter-State one, and detained the goods. The buyer paid tax and penalty to have them released the next day, then filed a writ petition. The High Court ordered a refund with interest, costs against the officer, and consideration of disciplinary action. It reasoned that a driver from another State might simply have lost his way.
The Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeal. It restated the exceptions as “(i) a breach of fundamental rights; (ii) a violation of the principles of natural justice; (iii) an excess of jurisdiction; or (iv) a challenge to the vires of the statute or delegated legislation”. None was established. A notice had been served on the person in charge of the vehicle, so there was no breach of natural justice. “The assessment of facts would have to be carried out by the appellate authority.” The writ petition was dismissed, with the buyer left free to appeal under section 107.
The exceptions as applied to GST
| Exception | What it usually covers in GST | Why a writ is preferred |
|---|---|---|
| Breach of natural justice | No hearing despite section 75(4), a hearing that was not real, an order that ignores the reply, or reliance on material never disclosed | A hearing denied at the first stage is not readily cured on appeal. Examples are in Replying to a Show Cause Notice |
| Wholly without jurisdiction | An order by an officer with no power to pass it, an order after the statutory time limit, or proceedings under a provision that does not apply | The defect goes to the existence of the order, not its correctness |
| Challenge to vires | A rule, notification or circular said to exceed the Act, or a provision said to breach the Constitution | Appellate authorities and the Tribunal apply the law. They cannot strike it down |
| No statutory appeal | Orders that are not of an “adjudicating authority”, as in Radha Krishan, or decisions that section 121 makes non-appealable | There is no alternative remedy to exhaust |
Two limits run through the cases. First, the exception must be real. In Commercial Steel, a dispute about where a truck was going was a question of fact, and the writ failed. Second, the court distinguishes an order made without jurisdiction from an error made in exercising jurisdiction. Only the first takes a case outside the appeals.
Before the Tribunal existed
From 2017 to 2025 a person who lost a first appeal under section 107 had a right of second appeal under section 112, but no Tribunal to file it in. The Government’s response was to keep the right alive, not to replace it. The Central Goods and Services Tax (Ninth Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019 (3 December 2019) made the period for appeal run from the communication of the order or the date the Tribunal’s President or State President entered office, “whichever is later”. Circular No. 132/2/2020-GST (18 March 2020) explained this to field formations. It was issued because appellate authorities were keeping appeals pending on the ground that no further remedy existed against their orders.
Recovery was the problem. Section 112(9) stays recovery only once an appeal is filed with the pre-deposit, and no appeal could be filed. Circular No. 224/18/2024-GST (11 July 2024) provided an interim procedure. The person paid an amount equal to the section 112(8) pre-deposit against the demand. The person also filed an undertaking with the proper officer to appeal once the Tribunal began work. Recovery of the balance was then treated as stayed.
In that period, High Courts regularly entertained writ petitions against first appellate orders, because the second appeal was not available. The Andhra Pradesh High Court’s later orders state this expressly: such petitions “were entertained, inasmuch as the alternative remedy, of filing Second Appeals, was not available”.
After the Tribunal began work
The Tribunal was launched in September 2025. The dates, the e-filing portal and the deadlines for the backlog are in Appealing to the GST Appellate Tribunal. The High Courts have since been sending second-appeal cases to it.
Pending writs closed with time to appeal. In M/s Sarda Metals and Alloys Ltd v Additional Commissioner of Central Tax (GST-Appeals) (Andhra Pradesh High Court, Division Bench, W.P. No. 32631 of 2023, 24 June 2026), the writ challenged a first appellate order of 25 August 2023. That order confirmed a demand of Rs 60,06,665, an equal penalty under section 122(b), and interest. The court recorded that the Tribunal for the State “has been constituted and is presently functioning”. It closed the petition and left the petitioner to file a second appeal under section 112. It gave eight weeks to do so, and continued any interim protection for twelve weeks. The same order was made in batches of petitions, including Sterling and Wilson Pvt Ltd v Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals) (W.P. Nos. 12385, 12424 and 12436 of 2025, 21 July 2026).
A claim that the Tribunal is not efficacious rejected. In Mahanadi Exporttek Pvt Ltd v Union of India (Delhi High Court, Division Bench, W.P.© 19358/2025, 28 April 2026), an exporter’s refund claims of about Rs 4.47 crore had been rejected. The rejections relied on alerts against some of its suppliers. The first appeals were dismissed on 22 August 2025. The exporter argued in writ that the rejections relied on material not put in the notices, and that the original authority had not heard it. It also argued that the Tribunal was “not fully functional”. The court found that the exporter had been given notices, had replied, and had been offered hearings at both stages, including four dates before the appellate authority. “The grievance, therefore, is not of absence of opportunity, but of non-acceptance of the submissions.” On the Tribunal, the court referred to its order in Rajesh Khanna v Office of the Commissioner of Central Tax Appeals-I (W.P.© 81/2026, 16 February 2026). In that case the Ministry of Finance had filed an affidavit stating that virtual hearings were possible and that the Tribunal had begun scrutinising appeals. The court held: “It is thus a matter of record that the GSTAT is functional and constitutes an efficacious statutory remedy.” The petitioner was relegated to section 112.
Against a State Bench’s own order, the further remedy is now the appeal under section 117. A writ against a Tribunal order faces the same alternative-remedy rule, with section 117 as the alternative.
A writ is not a way round a missed deadline
In Pawan Kumar Prabhat v Union of India (Patna High Court, Division Bench, CWJC No. 12138 of 2026, 12 August 2026), a proprietor’s registration had been cancelled on 31 December 2018. An order of 30 July 2024 demanded Rs 3,00,928 of tax for 2018-19, later rectified upward. About two years after the order, he asked the court to direct the appellate authority to accept his appeal despite the delay. The court applied its decision in M/s M K Traders v State of Bihar (CWJC No. 6180 of 2026). That decision reasons that the Act fixes the outer limits for each forum, including one month under section 107(4). Condoning a longer delay under Article 226 “will be against the legislative intent”. The petition was dismissed. Limitation for the first appeal is covered in Filing a First Appeal.
What to have ready
| Item | Where it comes from |
|---|---|
| The order challenged, its DRC-07 or APL-04 summary, and the date of communication | Portal |
| The notice, the reply, and any hearing notices and adjournment requests | Case file; portal |
| Proof of the defect relied on: no hearing notice, a missing date, an officer’s lack of authority, an order after the time limit | Portal records; notifications assigning proper officers; the limitation provision |
| For a vires challenge, the rule, notification or circular challenged, and the provision of the Act it is said to exceed | CBIC text; the Act |
| Whether an appeal lies, and whether its period is still running | Sections 107, 112, 117 and 121 |
| Pre-deposits paid, and the recovery position | Electronic liability register |
There is no GST form for a writ. The petition, its affidavit and fees follow the High Court’s own rules.
Consequences and timing
- A writ petition does not stay recovery by itself. Only the statutory appeals carry a deemed stay on payment of the pre-deposit (sections 107(7) and 112(9)). Otherwise a stay must come from the court.
- Nothing in sections 107, 112 or 117 stops the appeal period running while a writ is pending. Where a court declines to hear a petition, it may fix a period to appeal, as in Sarda Metals. That depends on the order.
- A writ filed long after the order faces both delay and the limits in the Act, as Pawan Kumar Prabhat shows.
The procedure in order
- Identify the remedy the Act gives against the order: an appeal under section 107, 112 or 117, or none.
- If an appeal lies and its period is running, the court will ordinarily expect it to be used. The pre-deposit stays recovery once the appeal is filed.
- Check whether the case falls within an exception: a breach of fundamental rights, a breach of natural justice, a lack of jurisdiction, or a challenge to vires. Check also that the defect is a real one and not a disagreement with findings of fact.
- Assemble the record that proves the defect from the documents alone. Disputed facts are a reason for the court to decline.
- File promptly. Delay counts against a writ, and the court will not use Article 226 to extend a statutory limit.
- If the court relegates the matter, file the appeal within any period the court fixes, with the pre-deposit.
The next guide covers the last step after a successful appeal: getting the pre-deposit back, with interest, and having credit restored where it was paid from the credit ledger.