Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 16569
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J
MOHAMMED AKBAR VEMULLI – Appellant
Versus
STATE TAX OFFICER (INVESTIGATION BRANCH) – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 8132 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.R.JAIKRISHNA KUM.NARAYANI HARIKRISHNAN, SRI.C.S.ARUN SHANKAR, SRI.GANESAN M., SRI.ANISH P., SRI.AKHIL SHAJI
For the Respondents: SRI.ARUN AJAY SHANKAR, G.P
The court allows an appeal under CGST Act despite the tribunal's non-functionality, staying coercive action under specified conditions.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: Section 74 and Section 112 of the CGST Act are relevant as the petitioner challenges an order passed under the former and seeks to invoke the latter. Facts of the Case: The petitioner filed an appeal against an order which was rejected. The tribunal has not commenced functioning, prompting the current writ petition.
Findings of Court:
The court allows the petitioner to submit the appeal once the tribunal is operational, staying any coercive action if a partial payment is made.
Issues: The court fundamentally questions the inability to appeal due to the tribunal's non-functionality.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes the necessity for the tribunal to function, permitting remedy through appeal, reinforcing rights under the CGST Act.
Result: This writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit the appeal.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's right to appeal under cgst act. (Para 1) |
| 2. the court stay on coercive actions. (Para 2) |
JUDGMENT
Petitioner, a registered taxpayer under the provisions of the GST Act, has filed an appeal against the order passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act pertaining to the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20, before the Appellate Tribunal. The same was rejected as per Ext.P2 Order. Even though the petitioner wants to challenge Ext.P2 Order by invoking the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 112 of the CGST Act , the petitioner is unable to invoke the same as the tribunal has not started functioning. This writ petition is submitted in such circumstances.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of, permitting the petitioner to submit the appeal within a specified period from the date on which the Tribunal starts functioning.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, within a period of three months from the date on which the Tribunal starts functioning. Till such time, coercive proceedings against the petitioner shall stand stayed, in case the petitioner pays 10% of the amount in dispute. It is clarified that, in case, the appeal is not submitted within the time specified above, this order of stay shall stand vacated.
Sd/-
