Petitioner permitted to approach newly constituted Appellate Tribunal without further pre-deposit following compliance with Court-ordered 20% deposit.

The petitioner challenged an appellate order dated December 14, 2023, passed under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, which arose from an adjudication order dated June 26, 2023, for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018.

The writ petition was originally filed because the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) had not yet been constituted.

On March 20, 2024, the High Court entertained the writ and granted a conditional stay on coercive actions, provided the petitioner deposited 20% of the disputed tax amount—a condition with which the petitioner complied.

Subsequently, the Court took judicial notice that the tribunal had since become functional and was accepting appeals.

1. Whether the petitioner should be relegated to the now-functional Appellate Tribunal despite the pendency of the writ petition.

2. Whether the pre-deposit of 20% made under the High Court's interim order can be set off against the statutory pre-deposit requirements of the Tribunal.

The Court applied Section 107 and Section 112 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, regarding the hierarchy of appeals and the constitution of the Appellate Tribunal.

It further relied on the Notification dated September 17, 2025, which extended the limitation period for filing appeals before the Tribunal for orders passed prior to April 1, 2026, until June 30, 2026.

The Court reasoned that since the Appellate Tribunal is now operational and the limitation period for filing an appeal has been officially extended by the government notification until June 30, 2026, it is "prudent" for the petitioner to exhaust the statutory remedy rather than continuing the writ proceedings.

To ensure the petitioner was not prejudiced by the transition from the High Court to the Tribunal, the Court noted that the 20% tax deposit already made by the petitioner fulfilled the spirit of the pre-deposit requirements.

Consequently, the Court directed the Tribunal to treat this deposit as sufficient and cautioned the state against coercive action during the extended limitation period.

The Court held that the 20% tax already deposited shall be credited toward the appeal, and the Tribunal shall not insist on any further pre-deposit.

The respondents are restrained from taking coercive action until the expiry of the period mentioned in the September 17, 2025 notification.