Gauhati HC Sends Tea Buyer’s GST Dispute To Tribunal, Which Must Hear Its Appeal Without Limitation Objection If Filed Within A Month

The petitioner challenged an Order-in-Original dated 7 February 2025 and an appellate order dated 30 April 2026, both under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

It claimed that it had paid GST to its supplier and that proceedings under Section 73 were unjustified because the supplier had not deposited the tax or reported it in its returns; the petitioner also asserted entitlement to input tax credit.

The respondents objected that the petitioner had an appellate remedy before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112.

The petitioner argued that it had approached the High Court within the Section 112 limitation period and would have no effective alternative remedy if relegated to the Tribunal after that period expired.

Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 concerns determination of tax not paid or short paid, or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised.

Section 112 provides an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, ordinarily within three months from communication of the order to the person appealing.

The Court applied the alternative and efficacious remedy principle: where the dispute raises factual questions within the Tribunal’s competence and no jurisdictional issue warrants writ intervention, the party should ordinarily pursue the statutory appeal.

Sections 109 and 117 were also referred to in connection with the Tribunal and the further remedy against its order.

The Court considered whether the petitioner had paid the tax to its supplier and whether it could claim input tax credit to be factual questions that the Appellate Tribunal could adjudicate; it found no jurisdictional issue requiring the High Court to entertain the writ petition.

It therefore declined writ intervention on the ground of the available statutory remedy.

However, because the petitioner had approached the Court within the Section 112 limitation period, the Court directed that limitation should not prevent the Tribunal from hearing an appeal filed within the specified period.

The petitioner was granted liberty to appeal the appellate order dated 30 April 2026.

If it filed the appeal within one month of the judgment, the Tribunal was directed to entertain it without insisting on limitation and to decide it on the merits.

No order as to costs was made.