Efficacious alternate remedy and writs in jurisdictional high courts.

Prior to September 2025, all the jurisdictional high courts all over India were little bit liberal in entertaining writs as the GSTAT was not operational then. However, the 56^th GST Council, during their meeting held on 03/09/2025 made several announcements including setting up of required number of benches of GSTAT all over India. Activities such as members taking charge, filing of e appeal in GSTAT portal etc. also speed up. Based on this development, many high courts have recently rejected the writs on GST matters on the   ground that there exists an alternate remedy and the taxpayer must try that route first.

This does not mean that there is a total bar or ban  on writs in GST matters since September 2025.The Supreme Court of India on 22/05/2026 decided to admit the Special Leave Petition where the High Court has dismissed writ quoting alternate remedy. As reported in 2026 (5) TMI 1439- SC -Order in the matter is Prime Metals, SLP is admitted and further hearing posted on 29/05/2026 after due intimation to Assistant Solicitor General as well as State Representative. The arguments of the taxpayer are accepted as mentioned here. “According to the learned counsel Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST if understood literally, mandates the assessee to do an impossible act. Learned counsel submits that under Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST input tax credit can be availed by an assessee only if the persons supplying the goods to the assessee, has actually paid tax to the Government either in cash or through utilization of input tax credit admissible in respect of said supply. Learned counsel submits that as to what happened at the supplier end is not in his control. Learned counsel also submits that in the present case there is no dispute that the immediate/preceding supplier had actually paid the tax and the allegation is that the supplier one removed did not pay or was allegedly a fake entity. Learned counsel contends that this cannot operate to the prejudice of the assessee”.

Thus it is clear that in all cases where the core issue is on Section 16 (2 ) ( c ) of the CGST/SGST Act, taxpayers are within their rights to approach the high courts by way of writs. The second issue on which writs are still possible is on Section 75 (4) as all the High Courts are  of the strong view that principles of natural justice are never to be violated. Accordingly, all orders which are passed either at adjudication level or at first  appeal level without affording an opportunity of personal hearing or effective personal hearing are open to challenge before the respective jurisdictional high court even today. Taxpayers as well as tax professionals may take advantage of this legal position. There are several High Court Orders available on this issue including Avik Televentures (P) Ltd case where writ was admitted as there was no effective personal hearing as reported in 2026 (4) TMI 421 Delhi High Court.

The third issue on which writs may be tried is on section 107 (1) which mandates a time limit of only three months for filing the first appeal. Though the officer is empowered under section 107 (4) to condone a delay up to one month on sufficient cause, the authorities are highly reluctant to exercise the power and simply reject the appeal quoting the ground as limitation.

This is a highly technical as well as legal issue and the legislature has carefully worded the section 107 (4) consciously by avoiding the reference to the limitation act. Several High Courts have relied on this principle and held that writs are entertainable by high courts wherever the first appeal is rejected on limitation ground as the first appellate authority has only limited powers to condone the delay and beyond one month delay, the authority is expected to reject the appeal in line with the said provisions. However, as this section is not worded as not  withstanding anything contained in the   Limitation Act, the high courts do have unlimited powers to condone such delays so long as there exist sufficient cause. In case the high court is convinced that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the time limit of three months as contained in 107 (1), the writs may be entertained at the discretion of the respective jurisdictional high courts.

The message is now loud and clear. Writs are still entertainable despite the availability of alternate remedy in cases where section 16 (2) ( c) or 107 (1) or 75 (4) are involved based on the verdicts passed post September 2025 by allowing the writs.

So far as rejection of appeal by first appellate authority when filed after statutory time frame of three months, in case the appeal is rejected on limitation ground without going to the merits of the case, the taxpayer may still file the appeal before the GSTAT before 30/06/2026 and present the case. In case the GSTAT dismisses the appeal on the ground that the taxpayer has failed to file the appeal in time and the first appellate authority is right in such rejection of the appeal, remedy is still possible before next level as there are so many rulings available on this issue by various high courts.