GST Appellate Tribunal possesses inherent jurisdiction to grant interim stay on recovery proceedings pending appeal, incidental to powers under Sections 111 & 113 CGST Act to pass orders as it thinks fit.

Judgment :

G. S. Kulkarni, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution raises an interesting issue as to whether the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’), in its constitution under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017(CGST Act), has jurisdiction to pass interim orders.

2. An Order-in-Original was passed under the provisions of the CGST Act against the petitioner on 18th December 2023 whereunder a tax liability stands confirmed against the petitioner. The Petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Appellate Authority. By an Order dated 12th June 2024, the Appellate Authority rejected the Petitioner’s Appeal by passing an Order-in-Appeal.

3. The Petitioner thereafter filed an Appeal before the GST Tribunal against the said Order-in-Appeal on 5th February 2026. In the interregnum, the Petitioner received intimations by e-mails dated 3rd February 2026 and 6th February 2026 raising a demand. Upon receipt of such intimations, the Petitioner informed Respondent No. 3 that the demand amount has been deposited and adjusted through Form GST DRC-03A, and that an Appeal against the Order-in-Appeal is pending before the Tribunal.

4. It is the petitioner’s contention that notwithstanding the above position, a Recovery Notice dated 6th February 2026 has been issued to the Petitioner and steps are sought to be taken to implement the same. It is in these circumstances, the present Petition has been filed contending that although the petitioner’s appeal is pending before the Tribunal, coercive recovery proceedings ought not to be continued. The Petition, therefore, seeks the following substantive reliefs:

a) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India, quashing and setting aside the Impugned Intimation Notice dated 03.02.2026 and the Impugned Recovery Notice dated 06.02.2026 for being arbitrary, without the authority of law, in excess / without jurisdiction, and in contravention of the Section 112(9) and/or Section 75(12) of the CGST Act;

b) Pending hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition, by an interim order and injunction, stay the operation and effect of the Impugned Intimation Notice dated 03.02.2026 and the Impugned Recovery Notice dated 06.02.2026;

5. At the outset, Mr. Takke, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, submitted that once the Appeal is pending before the Tribunal, the Petitioner ought to have approached the Tribunal seeking appropriate interim reliefs. He submitted that the Petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of moving the Tribunal for grant of stay, including on the basis of its contention under Section 112(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017(CGST Act), namely, that upon payment of the amount in terms of sub-section (8) of , recovery proceedings for the balance amount shall be deemed to be stayed till the disposal of the Appeal.

6. Responding to the objections as raised on behalf of the Revenue, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there is no provision either under the CGST Act or the Rules framed thereunder empowering the Tribunal to grant an interim order staying recovery proceedings. It was therefore contended that the Petitioner had no efficacious alternative remedy and was constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

7. In the aforesaid circumstances, the issue which arises for consideration, is whether t